Patna High Court judgments

The assessing officer issued notice to the assessee under Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, requiring him to furnish the details of his self-assessment, but the appellant failed to furnish the details. 12. Subsequently, the assessing officer passed the assessment order on 31st December 2017, determining the taxable income of the assessee. Before the Principal Commissioner, I.T., the appellant challenged the order dated 27th March 2017 in revision by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and the final assessment order dated 31st December 2017 passed by the assessing officer. 13. The Tribunal rightly held that against the order dated 31st December 2017, the appeal lies under Section 246(1) before the learned Commissioner and not before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that against the order dated 27th March 2017, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the appeal lies before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Both the appeals cannot be clubbed together in a single appeal before the Tribunal. Moreover, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 28th November 2019, almost after a expiry of two and a half years. No application for condonation of delay was filed; therefore, the appeal was barred by limitation. 14. On careful consideration of the impugned order, we do not find any error on fact or law in the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal. 15. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed, and the impugned order dated 5th September 2022, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is affirmed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It is submitted that in this case, the relevant year/ assessment year would fall during the Covid period. In ordinary course, the period of limitation would have come to an end upon completion of three years subject to the calculation of time-limit in terms of Section 149, but in this case, the period from 1st of April, 2021 to 20th of March, 2022 shall be liable to be excluded while counting the period of limitation. In the case of Abha Saraf (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held that the saving of limitation applies equally to individuals insofar as approaching the Courts or legal forums for redressal and also to the Departments, who are statutorily mandated to initiate proceeding within a specific time. Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra) and of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Abha Saraf (supra), we have no iota of doubt that in the present case as well the Department would be entitled to get the benefit of saving of limitation for the period 1st of April 2021 to 20th March, 2022. If that period is excluded from counting the limitation, notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 issued on 25.09.2024 would not be barred by limitation. In such circumstance, the sanction granted by the Principal Commissioner in accordance with Section 151 (i) of the Act of 1961 is in accordance with law. 42. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we are of the opinion that even the second ground is liable to fail. 43. In result, the writ application is dismissed. There would, however, not be any order for cost.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It was partly rejected to the extent that petitioner is liable to pay 20% of the disputed demand vide communication dated 10/13.01.2025 vide Annexure- P/7. Filing of application or representation dated 16.08.2024 read with decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax communication dated 10/13.01.2025 is not in accordance with the any statutory provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the other hand it is arising out of some administrative circular stated to have been issued in the department. 3. Be that as it may, petitioner has to make necessary application before the appellate authority insofar as seeking interim relief of staying the demand with reference to assessment order dated 30.03.2024. Such application has not been filed or accompanied by memorandum of appeal on the score that appellate authority has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief. Quasi-judicial authority are empowered to decide main matter as well as they can grant interim relief, there can’t be any restriction insofar as passing only final order, with reference to mitigating circumstances quasi-judicial authority is equally empowered to grant interim relief. Therefore, petitioner is hereby directed to file Interlocutory Application in the existing memorandum of appeal before the appellate authority in seeking interim relief. If such application is filed by the petitioner, before the appellate authority, the appellate authority is requested to decide such interim relief application within a reasonable period of ten days from the date of receipt of such Interlocutory Application to be filed. 4. With the above observation, the present CWJC No. 2228 of 2025 stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

(ii) Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of Principles of natural justice. (iii) To pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem to befit and more appropriate in order to grant interim relief to the petitioner.” 2. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, writ petition can be entertained against the show cause notice only on the violation of any statutory provision of law or the show cause notice itself is without jurisdiction. The petitioner has not urged any contention to the extent that there is a violation of any statutory provision of law and so also the author of the notice has no jurisdiction. In the absence of these two ingredients, the instant writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Another Versus Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 28 and Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Versus Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 565. Therefore, the instant writ petition stands disposed of as pre- mature. The petitioner is at liberty to file his explanation or reply to the show cause notice dated 04.03.2024 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of reply/ explanation on behalf of the petitioner, the concerned authority is hereby directed to examine the reply/explanation, if oral hearing is provided to the petitioner, in this regard, sufficient time shall be granted to the petitioner and, thereafter, proceed to pass a detailed speaking order after due taking note of each of the contentions to be raised by the petitioner. 3. With the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

At such a high position where he is required to consider each and every aspect of the matter in appeal, it is difficult to believe that an officer at his level would act in such a manner that it would result in causing hardship to the assessee and multiply the litigation. This Court is confining it’s observations with regard to the order impugned in the present writ application only. 15. In the admitted position, this Court sets aside the impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘P/1’ to the writ application and directs the CIT (A) to consider the appeal afresh keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that of this Court as discussed above. The CIT (A) has offered to give a personal hearing to the petitioner which must be given and a reasoned order be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. We would have left the matter here but the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a gross case which has resulted in causing hardship to the petitioner and the petitioner has been compelled to incur cost of litigation, cannot be ignored. We fully agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the manner in which the impugned order has been passed has caused hardship to the petitioner and it has also resulted in incurring litigation expenses. 17. In the facts of the present case, we, therefore, direct the Department of Income Tax/Respondents to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. It is open to the Department to realise the cost amount from the erring officer in accordance with law. 18. This writ application stands disposed of accordingly.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton2 (AC at p. 761) Lord MacDermott observed : (All ER p. 14 C- D) “The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge,…” 2. 1951 AC 737 : (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL) 35. It is not for this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction to analyse the kind of information and the documents which were in possession of the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned order of assessment. 36. In result, we find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. These writ applications are dismissed but with liberty to the petitioner to seek its statutory remedy in appeal, if so advised, before the competent/authority appropriate forum. 37. If any such remedy is applied for within a period of four weeks from today, the same will be considered by the Appellate Authority keeping in view that the petitioner was pursuing its remedy before this Court in the present writ application under some legal advice.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The anomaly has thus lent another dimension to the question to be resolved in the present case.” 15. The general principle insofar as providing opportunity or reasons in support of any adverse order or civil consequence, in such circumstance invariably reasons must be supported. In the present case, by virtue of notice under Section 148, petitioners are required to submit their explanation or whatever the materials. In this regard, unless and until petitioners are made known that they have to answer to the notice and it is not supported by reasons, otherwise they are not in a position to submit effective reply / explanation with the material information. On this score the petitioners have made out a case. Accordingly, impugned Notices dated 31.03.2021 and 23.11.2021 (Annexures - 1 and 3) and Order dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure - 2) in CWJC No. 587 of 2022, Notices dated 31.03.2021, 23.11.2021, 14.12.2021 (Annexures – 1, 3 and 4) and Order dated 01.02.2022 (Annexure – 2) in CWJC No. 2821 of 2022, Notices dated 27.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 (Annexure - 1 and 2) and Order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure – 3) in CWJC No. 2943 of 2022, Notices dated 31.03.2021, 08.01.2022 and 25.01.2022 (Annexures – 1, 2 and 3) in CWJC No. 3512 of 2022 and Notices dated 31.03.2021 and 24.02.2022 (Annexures - 1 and 3) and order dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure – 2) in CWJC No. 3900 of 2022 stand set aside. 16. Writ petitions stand allowed. Reserving liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notice supported by reasons, such exercise shall be undertaken within a period eight weeks from today, reserving liberty to raise such other contentions on behalf of the petitioners are left open to be urged before concerned authority/forum.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

53.3 In sum, the sense that one gets upon a holistic reading of the backdrop in which the new regime for reopening assessments was enacted is that where escapement of income was below Rs 50 lakhs, the normal period of limitation i.e. three (3) years was to apply. In comparison, the extended period of ten (10) years would apply in serious tax evasion cases where there was evidence of concealment of income of Rs 50 lakhs or more in the given period.” 41. On facts appearing from the records, there is no iota of doubt to this Court that no effective show-cause notice under section 148A (b) of the Act of 1961 was served upon the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner did not respond to the show-cause notice dated 23.03.2022 would not make the show-cause notice good and compliant with the requirement of law. After coming into force of the Finance Act 2021 the respondents could have issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, if the condition prescribed under Section 149(1) (b) would have been satisfied. 42. In view of the discussions hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was based on incorrect information furnished in the notice under section 148(A) (b) which was not supported by any material, therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding by issuing section 148 notice on 06.04.2022 would stand vitiated. 43. In result, the impugned orders and the demand raised against the petitioner stand quashed. 44. This writ application is allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is pointing out certain alleged error committed by the respondents insofar as issuance of show cause notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2021 and it has not been communicated to him in the manner known to the law. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondents has pointed out from the records that service of show cause notice dated 30.03.2021 has been served in two modes, namely, portal and postal. To that effect, necessary documents have been pointed out from the records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that insofar as assessment order and further action are concerned, he had preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and it was disposed on 29.07.2024. Thereafter, he has a remedy of further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. Taking note of these developments and the fact that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the instant writ petition is pre- mature. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate all the contentions before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is hereby directed to take note of pendency of the present litigation and it may assist the petitioner insofar as delay in filing Appeal is concerned in the light of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The same shall be taken note of for the purpose of condonation of delay, if any.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

(ii) For issuance of any other writ, order or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. During the pendency of the present lis, petitioner’s due amount of Rs.33 crores to be refunded by the respondent were disbursed in the following manner: “A sum of Rs.23 Crores in the month of August, 2024, Rs.47 Lacs in the month of December, 2024, Rs.26.73 Lacs in the month of December, 2024 and Rs.9 Crores and 63 Lacs on 21.01.2025 along with interest on belated refund of the petitioner’s due has been paid.” 3. Therefore, nothing remains in the present lis. Be that as it may, the Tax Payer has been unnecessarily harassed and compelling the petitioner to invoke remedy before this Court insofar as seeking financial due to him and made him to wait for more than one year. No doubt, interest has been paid to him, however, cost of the litigation is warranted in the present case. We propose to impose cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand). Cost shall be remitted in the Lawyers’ Association Welfare Benevolent Fund having Bank Account No.7801893276, IFSC Code-IDIB000L501, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. With the above observations, instant writ petition stands disposed of. 5. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

6th Proviso Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub- section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly.” 11. Combined reading of 5th and 6th Proviso, it is crystal clear that delay is required to be taken note of with reference to notice. In the present case notice means first notice issued on 28.03.2024 and it is within the time-limit stipulated and Assessing Officer has jurisdiction. 12. In view of these facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is pre-mature. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the process undertaken by the Revenue in the light of impugned order and notice and co-operate. 13. C.W.J.C. No. 8351 of 2024 is disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

8. Be that as it may, learned Senior counsel for the Department submits that in view of the pleadings available on the record, a fresh view is required to be taken by the Assessment Unit, therefore the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 as contained in Annexure ‘P1’ and the demand notice vide Annexure ‘P2’ may be set aside without going into the merit of the contentions and the matter be remitted to the competent authority in the Assessment Unit to take an appropriate view. 9. Having regard to the aforementioned submissions on behalf of the petitioner as well as the Department, we set aside the Order under Section 270A of the Act of 1961 (Annexure ‘P1’) and the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act of 1961 (Annexure ‘P2’). The matter is remitted to the National Assessment Unit, NFAC for passing a fresh order. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention towards Section 274 of the Act of 1961 to submit that the said Section mandates that no order imposing a penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. Learned Senior counsel for the Department does not dispute that in terms of Section 274 of the Act of 1961, the petitioner shall get an opportunity of hearing through faceless facility before the competent authority. 12. This Court understands that the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the mandate of law as contained in Section 274 of the Act of 1961. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Department seeking hearing through the faceless facility. 13. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

8. Annexure-P/5 is said to have been issued on the basis of the directions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as is seen from Annexure-A-4. It is the contention that the notices were issued based on the order of the Principal Chief Commissioner. 6. Admittedly, the statute was amended and Section 148A was introduced from 01.04.2021. Annexure-A-4 also indicates that the directions were with respect to handling of Non-PAN cases. In this context, we have to notice that the notices issued and the order passed shows a different PAN number from that issued to the petitioner, as seen from the return produced at Annexure-P/1. The notices and the assessment order shows the PAN number of HICPD0166H, which is suo motu issued by the department. There was no reason to suo motu issue a PAN number to the petitioner, who had a valid PAN under which she was filing return; which she had specifically mentioned in Annexure-P/3 reply. 7. Annexure-A-4 and Annexure-A-5 does not apply to the petitioner at all, and in any event, Section 148A proceedings have not been followed. 8. In the above circumstances, we set aside the assessment order passed (Annexure-P/9), the demand notice (Annexure-P/9A) as also Annexure-P/10 penalty order, which is a direct consequence of the assessment made. 9. We make it clear that if the limitation period is not over, the respondent would be entitled to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, as it stands now. The respondent shall also take steps to cancel the suo motu PAN issued by the department, since the petitioner has already been issued with a PAN number. 10. The writ petition stands allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

11. On the above reasoning, we find Annexure- P/1 to be untenable and we set it aside only on the issue of the assessment having been made in a PAN which was already surrendered. 12. However, the department cannot be prohibited from carrying out fresh proceedings. The petitioner in the writ petition itself has stated that the Commissioner could carry out a suo motu revision under Section 263 of the Act or the appellate authority could exercise the power under Section 251 of the Act. We would further observe that as of now, even a reassessment could be initiated under Section 148 of the Act after issuance of a notice under Section 148(A) by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the assessment completed through the faceless assessment procedure, in the new PAN, deeming the transactions carried out in the earlier PAN, to be that of the assessee, whose status has been converted and a new PAN issued; if the same is not disclosed in the returns or assessed to tax and thus escaped assessment of tax in the relevant year. 13. We have only observed on the various options available to the Department and it is for the Department to choose legally permissible options to be exercised and in any event, the assessee would not be entitled to raise the question of limitation and any proceeding taken would be relatable to the date on which the notice was issued under Section 148(A) of the Act as against the old PAN. 14. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The Commissioner had obviously read the reasons and made a written order that he was satisfied on the basis of reasons recorded, that this was a fit case for notice issued under Section 148. Section 151 requires the Principal Commissioner to be satisfied of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it was a fit case for issuance of such notice, where the notice was issued beyond expiry of 4 years. There is no requirement for the Commissioner to record his own reasons and it would suffice that he records the satisfaction regarding the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. 12. In N.C. Cables (supra) the High Court of Delhi held in para 11, that: “It is not as if the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner.” (sic para 11) This is in consonance with our finding in the previous paragraph. 13. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the notice issued under Section 148, on the grounds raised in the writ petition. 14. The assessment order, amenable to statutory appeal can be challenged, subject to just exceptions on limitation. On that count, we notice that the above writ petition was registered on 17.02.2020 and has been pending till date, which period obviously can be considered for condonation, if an appeal is filed within a period of 2 months from the date of uploading of this order. We make it clear that we have not looked at the delay, otherwise than the pendency of the writ petition; which period alone we observe, is entitled to condonation. The writ petition stands dismissed with the above liberty.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

7. In the cited decision of Meenu Chaufla (supra), the application of adjournment filed by the assessee was not rejected or responded to. The contention of the assessee was also that they had filed a reply on 27.03.2022 but the Online portal itself was closed by the respondents on 24.03.2022. Further, the assessee though could not upload the reply; submitted it through an e-mail addressed to the Assessing Officer. The impugned order was passed after the e-mail was received by the Assessing Officer. The non-consideration of the reply received was also found to have vitiated the order challenged therein. The instant case differs on facts distinctly. 8. The petitioner as has been noticed, submits that Annexure- 3 was never received by him but produced it along with the writ petition. Likewise, Annexure- 4 reply is said to have been filed on 22.04.2024, after the order was passed. The petitioner was granted time up to 14.04.2023 and the order was passed only on 21.04.2023. There is no question of any remand being made for the purpose of hearing. 9. We also notice that the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act is not conclusive since, now the petitioner will be issued with a notice under Section 148. 10. The counter affidavit of the respondents indicates that a notice has already been issued under Section 148 on 21.04.2023. 11. The petitioner would be entitled to raise all contentions in reply to the said show cause notice, if the same has not been concluded till now. 12. The writ petition stands dismissed with the above liberty.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner does not come under any of the categories prescribed. However, we are of the opinion that the guidelines are only for compulsory selection of returns for scrutiny and it does not preclude random selection for scrutiny by the Assessing Officers. The categories coming under the guidelines are those which are to be taken up mandatorily for scrutiny and this does not create any restriction of any other category being taken up for scrutiny. 3. The next contention is one of violation of principles of natural justice, insofar as no hearing having been granted to the assessee. Admittedly, the petitioner while uploading the application did not seek for an opportunity for personal hearing. The petitioner’s contention is that the reply filed specifically sought for such personal hearing. As per the system generated notices and uploading of on-line replies in specified forms; there is a specific column provided for requesting personal hearing. Unless the personal hearing is sought for, there would be no requirement to issue such personal hearing. Admittedly, in the present case, the column for personal hearing was not ticked as ‘Yes’. The reply was filed and it was duly considered in the order passed. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order also on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. On the above reasoning, we find absolutely no reason to invoke the extra ordinary remedy under Article 226. We dismiss the writ petition, however, leaving the petitioner to file an appeal, if so desired, subject to just exceptions; including that of limitation.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The orders are dated 14.05.2023 and 30.01.2024 respectively and relate to the same issue. 2. The petitioner had sought for deduction of TDS in the interest income earned from banks at NIL, since the petitioner’s contention was that the total income justifies such benefit under Section 197. The orders impugned only found that there was a tax demand with respect to the Assessment Year 2018-19, which is pending and hence the deduction at the lower rate/NIL rate is not possible. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the tax demand for the year 2018-19 has been stayed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax till the First Appeal is disposed of. 4. De hors the stay ordered; pending First Appeal, we see that the provision under Section 197 only clothes the Assessing Officer with the power to satisfy himself that the total income of the recipient justifies the deduction of Income Tax at any lower rates or at a NIL rate. Hence, a demand pending against the assessee would not clothe the Assessing Officer with the power to summarily reject an application under Section 197. The satisfaction to be recorded under Section 197 is clearly with respect to the total income of the recipient for the subject assessment year, where the deduction is claimed at a NIL rate for the interest income earned from the fixed deposits in banks. 5. We set aside Annexures P/1 and P/2 orders for having decided the issue on extraneous considerations. The application will stand restored before the Assessing Officer and the same will be considered in accordance with law, as interpreted by us hereinabove. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The FAQ is extracted hereunder:- “4. I have moved to a different city/state, do I need to change my AO? Yes. When you shift your permanent address or residential address from one state to another, it is necessary to get your PAN migrated to the new AO. Although the Income Tax Department endeavours to provide taxpayers with all necessary services online, on rare occasions you may need to contact your AO. Thus, it is in your interest to get your PAN migrated to the proper jurisdictional AO, so you can easily reach him/her when the need arises. 6. What should I do to migrate my PAN to a new AO? You need to file an application for migrating your PAN to your current jurisdictional AO. The process involves: 1. Write an application to your current AO stating the reason for change as address change. 2. Write an application to the new AO, requesting him/her to apply to the existing AO for the change. 3. The current AO has to accept this application. 4. Once approved, the application is forwarded to the Income Tax Commissioner. 5. After approval from the Commissioner, the AO is changed. You are required to make a written request to your existing AO for migrating your PAN to the new AO based on your new address.” 14. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the above extract are relevant, which procedure has to be complied with by the petitioner for change of jurisdiction. Obviously, the petitioner has not applied to any A.O. in New Delhi so as to assume jurisdiction in the case of the assessee. Leaving liberty to apply for such change of jurisdiction, we decline interference to the notice now issued for the reasons stated above. 15. The writ petition stands dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 04-07-2024 The contention of petitioner against the Assessment Order at Annexure-P/1 is that no opportunity for hearing was granted despite the same having been prayed for, as is evident from Annexure-P/8. 2. Annexure-P/8 is a print out from the e-portal of the Income Tax Department which indicates that the petitioner had made a request for video conferencing on 24.11.2023. Admittedly, the request was not considered. We also notice from Annexure-P/7, the objection filed by the petitioner, that they had specifically requested to provide an opportunity for personal hearing through video conferencing, if the objection is not found to be satisfactory by the Assessing Officer. 3. In the above circumstance, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Though the assessment is to be carried out by the National Faceless Assessment Centre on a request for personal hearing the same has to be granted. In fact the portal also has a facility by which a request can be made which has been made by the petitioner as per Annexure-P/8. It was only incumbent on the part of the National Faceless Assessment Centre to have granted that opportunity. We find the order to be vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. 4. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the assessment. The petitioner shall produce the judgment before the 2nd respondent who shall fecilitate the hearing through National Faceless Assessment Centre. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Obviously, the Joint Commissioner seems to have transferred the file of the Assessee to the Income Tax Officer Ward 6(4) Patna, on the ground that the property in relation to which the addition is threatened, was located within the State of Bihar, that too inside the boundaries of Patna. We, specifically notice Section 127 which clothes the Principal Director General, Director General, the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers sub-ordinate to him, whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers also sub-ordinate to him. However, the specific mandate in Section 127 is that the Assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so. There is no circumstance brought on record which made the extension of such an opportunity, which is also the statutory mandate, to be impossible in the facts of the present case. Obviously, the transfer was done behind the back of the petitioner. We find no reason to uphold the order of assessment, which was passed pursuant to a notice issued on the wrong premise of a transfer made by the Commissioner without following the principles of natural justice, which is specifically made a mandate in the provision enabling such transfer. 5. But for the different Assessing Officer, the facts are identical. We, hence, set aside the assessment order passed and find the notice to be wrongly issued. The Appropriate Authority would be entitled to take further proceedings, if it is permissible under the Act subject to the laws of limitation, as has been laid down in the various provisions under the Income Tax Act. 7. The writ petition stands allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It is not in dispute that the last lease agreement entered into between the parties on 1.7.2023, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure P/5, gave right to the Income Tax Department to terminate the lease at any time giving to the lessor three month’s notice in writing of its intention to do so. The said lease agreement also came to an end on 31.3.2024. The petitioner is not alleging violation of any of the terms of the lease. 7. Further the notice inviting proposals as seen from Annexure P/6 was published on 16.02.2024. The petitioner also had bid under Annexure P/6, but was disqualified. After having thus bid and failed, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge vacation of his premises. 8. Further, from the material on record as also the averments made in the writ application, it transpires that bids submitted by the bidders including the petitioner was evaluated by the Building Hiring Committee of the Income Tax Department under the Chairmanship of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Patna and of which the Income Tax Officer (HQ), Patna, the Income Tax Officer, Ara, Ward 1 (4), Ara and the Income Tax Officer (Technical) I.T. Building, Patna were members. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the suitability etc. of the premises of the bidders having been evaluated not only on the basis of technical bid submitted but also by visit of the members of the Building Hiring Committee to the premises in question on 16.4.2024, as is borne out from paragraph no.14 read with Annexure-P/7 of the writ application, the Court finds no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. 10. The writ application is dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It was held that the new provisions substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 were remedial and benevolent in nature; substituted with a specific aim and object to protect the rights and interest of the assessees. The same was also in public interest and by virtue of the judgment of various High Courts, there would be no re- assessment proceedings if the benevolent provisions of Finance Act, 2021 is applied across the board. It was only in such circumstances that the judgments in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were modified and substituted, specifically providing for the Assessing Officers who had issued notices post 01.04.2021, without following the procedure under Section 148A to provide the respective assesssees information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days so that the assessees can reply to the show cause notices within two weeks thereafter. 7. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is dated 04.05.2022 and in that circumstances every noticee/assessee should have been supplied the information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days. Here the notice under Section 148A was issued on 23.06.2022 after almost a year from the date provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. In the above circumstances, we do not find a way to permit the re-assessment under Section 148 to be continued. We allow the writ petition interfering with the orders passed beyond the period of limitation provided and the extended period as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited judgment. 9. It goes without saying that demand notices issued pursuant to the assessment order stands quashed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department from the Appellate Order, Paragraph 27, points out that the Appellate Authority records that a hearing was fixed and the representative attended and was heard. 4. We extract hereunder the specific portion of Paragraph 27:- “27. In the letter the assessee has requested for the V.C. hearing. The same is fixed on 16th at 3 PM as per the request and link is provided after the approval of the higher authorities. In the VC hearing the representative attended and briefed issues.” 5. We see that the month in which the hearing took place is not specified. The written submissions were filed on 10.02.2023 and the appellate order, produced as Annexure-P/1, was passed on 31.01.2024. We also see that the specific averment made in the writ petition has not been controverted in the counter affidavit. Definitely, if a hearing was conducted, there should have been a notice issued, either in the physical form or auto populated, which should also find place in the counter affidavit. There is no averment controverting the specific allegation of no personal hearing having been afforded. We are also unable to place any reliance on Paragraph 27 in the Appellate Order, which is a mechanical statement made without specification of the exact day on which the hearing was conducted, without specification of the month. 6. We hence set aside the order dated 31.01.2024 at Annexure-P/1 directing the Appellate Authority to intimate the hearing date and grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass a speaking order. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the assessment and the same would be decided by the Appellate Authority. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the writ petition is allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

So the learned trial court has committed error in not considering the amendment petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code citing pendency of proceedings before the probate court. 7. Hence, the observations made by the learned trial court regarding present stage not being a proper stage for passing any order on amendment petition before the final adjudication of the probate case is not sustainable and therefore, the stay of further proceedings of the partition suit till final adjudication of the Probate Case No. 62 of 2017 was simply unwarranted. 8. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find and hold that while passing the impugned order dated 05.07.2018 in Title Suit No. 340 of 2009, the learned Sub Judge-XI, Patna committed an error of jurisdiction and erroneously refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, hence the impugned order is set aside. 9. Considering the fact that a large number of issues would overlap, probate proceedings and civil suit should be clubbed and heard together by the competent court in terms of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) and Nirmala Devi (supra). Therefore, the learned District Judge, Patna is requested to transfer the Title Suit No. 340 of 2009 to the court which is already seized of the matter in Probate Case No. 62 of 2017 and the concerned court, while considering all issues, would proceed to dispose of both the cases within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

8. The learned Senior Standing Counsel also points out that Annexure-3 is a letter received by one Abhishek Kumar, who does not represent the Bar Association, who is the petitioner herein. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, points out that Abhishek Kumar is the Chartered Accountant who has been entrusted with the filing of returns and also hearing. 10. The Income Tax Department though submits that the adjournment request was not received in the ITBA portal, does not disown the mail issued as produced at Annexure-3. There is nothing pointed out by the Department also that suitable instructions were issued to the assesses to upload the adjournment requests in a particular portal. The computerisation is to facilitate expeditious assessment and it cannot result in such gross violations of principles of natural justice. What is prayed for by the petitioner, which is a District Bar Association is only for reconsideration after hearing it orally. 11. In such circumstances, we set aside the order dated 27.03.2023 as contained in Annexure-2 series in the writ petition. 12. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Saharsa, who has filed the counter affidavit in the writ petition, shall on receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, facilitate the opening of the portal so as to enable filing of objections. 13. The petitioner shall file the objections and after affording a personal hearing, the matter shall be considered afresh. 14. We make it clear that the assessment order is set aside only on violation of the principles of natural justice and we have not looked at the merits of the assessment at all. 15. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

6. We also notice the contours of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with appellable orders laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499. It has been held that if an assessee approaches the High Court without availing the alternate remedy, it should be ensured that the assessee has made out a strong case or that there exists good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. While reiterating that Article 226 of the Constitution confers very wide powers on the High Court, it was clarified that nonetheless the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy. The High Court, hence, can always refuse the exercise of discretion if there is an adequate and effective remedy elsewhere. The High Court can exercise the power only if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or due procedure required for the decision has not been adopted. The High Court would also interfere if it comes to a conclusion that there is infringement of fundamental rights or where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders and proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or when the vires of an Act is challenged. The plea made of no oral hearing afforded has to be considered in the context of the option not having been exercised; which amounts to a waiver. 7. We, however, reserve the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The period during which the writ petition, was filed from 20.04.2024, till today, shall not be reckoned as delay. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

6. We also notice the contours of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with appellable orders laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499. It has been held that if an assessee approaches the High Court without availing the alternate remedy, it should be ensured that the assessee has made out a strong case or that there exists good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. While reiterating that Article 226 of the Constitution confers very wide powers on the High Court, it was clarified that nonetheless the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy. The High Court, hence, can always refuse the exercise of discretion if there is an adequate and effective remedy elsewhere. The High Court can exercise the power only if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or due procedure required for the decision has not been adopted. The High Court would also interfere if it comes to a conclusion that there is infringement of fundamental rights or where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders and proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or when the vires of an Act is challenged. The plea made of no oral hearing afforded has to be considered in the context of the option not having been exercised; which amounts to a waiver. 7. We, however, reserve the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The period during which the writ petition, was pending, from 10.04.2024, till today, shall not be reckoned as delay. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-04-2024 The only contention of the petitioner is the violation of principles of natural justice of not having afforded a reasonable opportunity to file the objections. Annexure-P1 assessment order dated 25.03.2024 is challenged as having violated principles of natural justice. Annexure-P5 is the show- cause notice issued on 13.03.2024 threatening addition of Rs. 10 crores to the income of the assessee-petitioner. Objections were invited and were to be filed by 15.03.2024 even as per the notice. The petitioner by Annexure-P6 filed an application for adjournment on 14.03.2024 which was not responded to and the assessment order was passed on 25.03.2024. 2. We find gross violation of principles of natural justice in so far the as two days granted for filing an objection being not adequate opportunity as would be required. 3. Annexure-P1 order hence is set aside only for that reason. 4. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on merits of the matter. Annexure-P-5 show-cause notice would stand revived and the petitioner would be obliged to file an objection within two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. On production of the same, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Patna will ensure that the portal is opened for the purpose of online filing. The petitioner shall do the online filing and also furnish a physical copy of the objection to the officer. The petitioner shall be granted a hearing by the Faceless Authority and the matter disposed of on merits. 5. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

4. We have anxiously considered the contentions raised. Annexure-P/2 is the assessment order passed on 21.03.2022. As has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the subsequent assessment years 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2021- 22, the petitioner was granted exemption under Section 10(26BB) of the Income Tax Act. One of the orders, relating to assessment year 2016-17 is produced before us, which is dated 26.11.2019. 5. The counter affidavit does not oppose the contention of the petitioner that it is a Corporation incorporated for the upliftment of the minorities and that it comes squarely under the ambit of Section 10(26BB) of the Income Tax Act. The various paragraphs in the counter affidavit are those extracted from the assessment order. It is also stated that when the Appeal was filed there was no deposit of 20% which was demanded and obtained from the Bank, in which the petitioner maintains an account. 6. As we observed, there was nothing stated as to the petitioner’s exemption not been permissible. Admittedly, the petitioner had been granted such exemption under Section 10(26BB) for other years also. The issued raised by the petitioner is one going to the very jurisdiction of the assessing officer to make an assessment ignoring the exemption. That the assessing officer has the jurisdiction to make an assessment cannot at all be doubted, but, however, while proceeding with the enquiry for assessment, the assessing officer went beyond the jurisdiction conferred on him by assessing an entity which is entitled to complete exemption. 7. We are of the opinion that the order has to be set aside and we do so. The amounts recovered on the basis of the Appeal filed will also be refunded with statutory interest. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The mere statement that the petitioner has not stated the PAN No. does not take the department anywhere, since the PAN No. of M/s Aryan Trading Company was also not supplied to the petitioner by the department. 13. The order does not indicate the name of M/s Aryan Trading Company having been shown in the books of accounts of the petitioner. If purchases were questioned, the department ought to have looked at the invoices of the petitioner to get the PAN Nos. or directed the petitioner to furnish the PAN Nos. of the suppliers; whose transactions could be linked to those supplies/fraudulent transactions of M/s Aryan Trading Company. For that definitely, the transactions of M/s Aryan Trading Company on the various dates, with the value of the invoices, should be available and co-related with the books of accounts of the petitioner. This exercise has not been carried out by the department. 14. There is absolutely no reliable material, which the department has obtained for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. No such material has been supplied to the assessee to get his response on the same. As we noticed above, the report of the Special Commissioner was also not given to the assessee and it is not produced in the present writ proceedings by the department. The petitioner’s contention all through has been that he has no business transactions with M/s Aryan Trading Company and he cannot be asked to prove the negative. 15. We find the proceeding under Section 148-A of the Act to be a clear abuse of process of law and not coming within the scope and ambit of Section 148. The assessment order, hence, is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

3. The Under Secretary- ITA-II, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 01-04-2024 None appears for the petitioner when the matter was called. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents, specifically points out Annexure-1, which is under challenge in the writ petition. Annexure-1 is a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year referred to in the notice is 2013-14 and the date of notice is 31.03.2021. 3. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department that the limitation for assessment year 2013-14 would normally expire on 31.03.2020, but, since the COVID-19 Pandemic was raging, the The Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the period of limitation with respect to every legal proceeding, which would be applicable equally to the Department and the Assessee. It is hence that notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued. 4. The only ground raised also is of limitation, there is a stay in the matter and hence the proceedings have not been finalized. 5. In such circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to file a reply to the notice and the respondent-authority would consider the same, in accordance with law. 6. The respondent-authority shall intimate a date for filing of objections and afford a personal hearing to the assessee before disposal of the matter. 7. The writ petition stands closed with the above direction.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The petitioner, hence, seeks refund of the amounts already attached and recovered from the petitioner’s account. The petitioner also relies on judgment at Annexure-9 of another Division Bench of this Court. 8. Annexure-9 decision was in a batch of three writ petitions where attachment of the bank accounts of the assesses were made, when the assessment orders which created the demand were challenged in appeal after depositing 20% of the disputed tax amount under the Value Added Tax Act. Identical to the case herein, the attachment order was made of a cash credit account, which is a credit facility offered to the customer by the bank subject to a limit; which even if not overdrawn to the limit, would still not have any money belonging to the assessee as distinguished from a credit balance in a current account. But therein the demand was not met, which was met in the present case; which detains us from directing a refund. 9. We make it clear that if the assessment is set aside, the assessee would be entitled to the refund along with interest payable as per the statute or that paid by the assessee in the cash credit account; whichever is higher and if not, the assessee would be saved from the interest on the amount recovered in the intervening period. In that circumstance, we are of the opinion that there is no requirement to direct the assessee to be refunded the 20% already recovered. There shall be no further recovery based on the impugned assessment till the appeal is disposed of. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations but without anything said about the merits of the assessment made.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Hence, as held by the Tribunal, the assessee cannot wriggle out of the liability unless the purchases and the money spent on relief material is substantiated, failing which the assessee would have to be taxed for the entire money’s received in the accounts. 9. We do not think that there is any reason to keep the matter pending till the suit is disposed off. As has been rightly noticed by the Tribunal, neither would the findings of the Assessment Officer have a bearing on the disposal of the suit nor would the findings in the suit have a bearing on the assessment to be carried out. The assessee has not produced any material before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the purchases made by him, from the amounts disbursed by the State Government for the purpose of providing flood relief. The Tribunal has categorically noticed that no evidence was led by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. 10. A contention was raised based on Section 50 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, but no certificate of utilization was produced by the assessee. The supply of relief material was the responsibility of the Corporation and if at all, the utilization certificate is obtained, it can only be by the Corporation. The assessee had no privity of contract either with the State or the Corporation to supply relief material and there is no question of a utilization certificate issued under the Disaster Management Act coming to the rescue of the assessee. 11. We find absolutely no question of law arising in the case and the question framed is one on facts and not on law. The appeal against the order of the Tribunal, in the second appeal filed by the assessee, would stand rejected. 12. Ordered accordingly.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

7. In C.W.J.C. No. 14920 of 2022, the order impugned is one in which penalty was imposed which is dated 07.02.2022. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these is no cause for penalty and if there is excessive quantum fixed than that provided in the statute. Again these are matters which could be agitated before the Appellate Authority, which the petitioner has not done even within the time permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. What was observed about the assessment order equally applies to the penalty orders. 9. Having said that there could be no interference caused in the writ petitions, we notice that the provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not provide for any specific period within which a delayed appeal has to be filed. The statute provides the power on the Commissioner Appeals to look into the grounds for delay and if satisfied admit the appeal and consider it on merits. 11. In such circumstances, it is only proper that we direct the petitioner to file an appeal with a delay condonation application, the delay having to be explained from 28.05.2022. 12. We also make it clear that, since, the writ petition was filed on 01.11.2022, the petitioner would not be called upon to explain the delay after 01.11.2022, which is only because of the pending writ petition. We make it clear that we have not said anything about the merits of the matter nor on the delay, the satisfaction of which is exclusively with the Commissioner of Appeals. 13. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. 14. The petitioner would file an appeal within three weeks’ from today in which case, the above directions would apply squarely. aditya/sudha ( Rajiv Roy, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent department also pointed out from the counter affidavit that the delay would create the liability of interest, interest on interest and penalty also, which has been tabulated in the counter affidavit dated 24.04.2023 filed by the department. We would only say that the statutory consequences follow. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the department that the quantum as submitted by the petitioner is also not the actual amounts made liable on delayed payment. 10. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the interim order passed by another Division Bench, was only on the petitioner’s submission that the amounts to be paid are Rs. 2,72,40,648/-. It is also pertinent that even the undertaking as seen from the interim order has not been complied with. We also have our own reservation as to whether by a judicial order, the necessary consequences of an order of the Settlement Commission, on non-compliance, can be set at naught by this Court. However, we need not look into that aspect since even according to the petitioner he has not complied with the interim order. 11. The order of the Settlement Commission and the interim order of this Court has worked itself out; both, on non- compliance of the conditions of payment, by the petitioner. The consequences with respect to immunity having been set at naught, would be visited on the petitioner. The Settlement Commission’s order would not be enforceable, but we made it clear that the delayed payments made would be set-off against the demands raised against the petitioner either interest or principle due, as the statute mandates. 12. The writ petition would stand dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It cannot be said that the penalty was levied only on the creditors having not turned up and confirmed the credits. There was absolutely no evidence produced to substantiate the credit that was recorded in the books of accounts; when there can be inferred a deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This is a clear case falling under Section 271(1)(c) since the assessee had merely doctored its books of accounts to show sundry credits without even the invoices leading to such credits being produced. The certificates furnished, of the so called creditors, also did not show the credits; thus bringing in mens rea. 8. On the first question of law, we have to notice Saheli Leasing and Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein the burden under Section 271(1)(c) is found entirely on the assessee and there cannot be any shifting of burden on to the revenue, especially in the context of no material having been placed before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the sundry credits claimed. The mere disclosure of the name and address of the sundry creditors cannot lead to substantiation of the credits especially when there was no evidence produced regarding the transactions which led to the credit. The mere acceptance of the entirety of the purchases would not lead to substantiation of the credits claimed; since the purchases which led to the credit, has not been established before the Assessing Officer. There was no material available on record before the Assessing Officer, the First Appellate Authority or the Tribunal, which would have persuaded them to take a contrary decision with respect to penalty. 9. We answer the questions of law framed against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. The appeal stands rejected.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

of the application of the petitioner, if so filed, within next three months. 30. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make a required application to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction of the matter for the grant of relief under Section 89 of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the statue. The SBI is directed to extend all assistance to the petitioner to enable him to avail such relief. We also hope and expect that the Assessing Officer of the income tax considers and dispose of the matter expeditiously and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of application.” 2. Respondents have filed Show Cause on 07.02.2022. In para 26, they have stated as under: “26. That after receiving the order of condonation from the Pr. CIT-1, Patna the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(5), Sitamarhi has processed the ITR and accordingly issued refund to the amount of Rs. 2,12,924/- and also settled the grievance of the petitioner.” 3. On 10.02.2022, Income Tax Department have communicated rectification order in which they have indicated that amount refunded is to Rs. 2,12,924/- balance refundable is Rs. 72,394/-. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instruction, submitted that for the purpose of refund of Rs. 72,394/- certain formalities were required to be completed on behalf of the petitioner. The same has not been complied. 5. Taking note of these dates and events, the present MJC – Contempt Petition stands dropped reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

1 herein. It is necessary to extract Para 15 of the order dated 02.09.2020, which reads as under:- “15. Hence on both counts, we see no reason to accept the contentions of the petitioner- (a) Constitutional validity of the Act already stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Exide Industries Limited (supra). (b) On the second submission, undisputedly, petitioner had not deposited the amount deducted as STT with the authorities, and it is not his case that the same stood paid back/returned to the person from whom it stood deducted. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that since the petitioner was adopting the mercantile system of accounting; he was not supposed to take any action. Even on this count, given law discussed above, more so Exide Industries Limited (supra). (supra) and Mcdowell (supra), the orders cannot be said to be perverse and illegal warranting interference by this Court.” Later portion of the order in Para 15, i.e., (b) insofar as challenge to the revision order dated 20.01.2011, the same has been decided on factual aspects read with judicial pronouncements. We find no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, we dismiss the civil review petition, since there is no error insofar as finding given by this Court in the order dated 02.09.2020. Further scope of review petition is limited as held by the Apex Court in the following decisions. (a) S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and Ors. reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 185. (b) Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Services Ltd. and Anr., 2023 Livelaw (SC) 506. (Para 14 to 17). 4. Accordingly, the present Civil Review petition stands allowed in part. Jyoti/abhishek (Arun Kumar Jha, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Insofar as the clause(b) is concerned, the limitation is 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, provided the escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50 lakh or more. In the present case, the order under clause (b) of Section 148A itself is passed on 21.04.2023 after the expiry of the three year period and the total amounts likely to have escaped assessment is indicated as Rs. 13,93,500/-. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department argued that in fact Annexure-1 is the initiation of the proceedings, which was on 31.03.2023 on introduction of the faceless assessment by way of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. There is requirement for issuance of notice under Section 148A(a) and an order under clause(d) prior to the notice issued under Section 148A; which provision (Section 148A) is introduced newly under the I.T. Act. The notice under Section 148A is issued within a three year period, is the contention. 6. It is to be noticed that Section 148A was brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021 when Section 148 also stood substituted. Section 148A deals with the inquiry and the opportunity being provided before issuance of notice under Section 148. However, under Section 149, which also stood substituted by Finance Act, 2021, the limitation provided is for the notice under Section 148 and not of inquiry or opportunity for hearing under Section 148A. 7. The relevant assessment year is 2019-20 and three years end on 31.03.2023. There is no notice issued under Section 148 as on date. The proceedings, hence, cannot be continued and we find Annexure-3 order under Section 148(d) to be not enabling the Department to proceed under Section 148. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

In such circumstance, the finding that assessee had not explained the source of income for the money spent on the children’s education cannot at all be sustained. 2. We have to immediately notice the explanation put forth by the assessee to explain the source of income regarding the specific expenditure as available in the assessment order. The assessee claimed by reply dated 29.07.2002, as available in Paragraph 10.2 of the assessment order, that the expenses were met out of the sale proceeds of the lichi orchard financed by his uncle Shri Devnath Prasad, money received from Mr. Lal Bhai Desai, who is a friend of the assessee and from his own wife and the wife of his younger brother, the last person having disclosed an income of Rs. 7,20,000/- under the V.D.I. Scheme of 1997. 3. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that none of the explanations were supported with substantiating evidence. There was no documentary evidence regarding the lichi orchard or the money received from the individuals named. The expenses met by one Lal Bhai Desai was not substantiated. As far as the account of the wife is concerned, the withdrawals were meagre and not to the extent of the entire amounts spent for the children’s education. The Assessing Officer all the same permitted a deduction of 50 per cent and added only half of the amounts proposed. The Tribunal also found that there was absolutely no evidence proffered to explain the source of income, of the amounts spent on the children, for their education. 4. The question of income of the assessee itself being available, does not arise at all, considering the explanation proffered by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. 5. We find absolutely no question of law arising from the order and reject the appeal.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The investment made on behalf of the sons in the company was not disclosed in the returns of the assessee. Only on the return filed pursuant to the search, the disclosure was made regarding the floating of the company with the assessee, his wife and mother as partners. This led to the discovery of the investment made in the name of his sons, hence, the assessee having accepted this in the reply submitted to the assessing officer pursuant to the notice issued under Section 132, it is relatable to the search and the addition is proper. The investment of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of HUF was deleted by the first appellate authority. 11. The education expenses also stood confirmed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the information regarding assessee’s son pursuing his education in Scindia School was discovered as a result of search. It is pursuant to that a requisition was made from the school and the entire expenses were detected for the four assessment years; of which two stood explained. The assessee was not able to substantiate the source of income as put forth detected in the other two years; allegedly by way of income from a HUF, the returns of which were not filed in the relevant assessment year and a gift, which was just a bland statement without any substantiation. 12. We find that the additions made were as a result of the material recovered and the admissions made pursuant to the search directly relatable to the search. On the above finding it has to be found that no question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal and the finding on facts of the Assessing Officer, affirmed by the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal are unassailable in the present appeal. 13. The appeal would stand rejected.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The corrigendum has more specification in so far as the unexplained investments, with respect to purchase of agriculture land coming to Rs. 26,72,000/- and the purchase of a vehicle coming to Rs. 6,69,277/-. We cannot but notice that the corrigendum is dated 30.05.2023 while the order passed under Section 148A(d) is dated 24.03.2023 on which date itself the notice under Section 148 was issued; the latter two documents having been produced as Annexure-13 and Annexure-14. Hence, obviously, there is infirmity and illegality in the order passed under Section 148A(d) which vitiates the further notice issued under Section 148. 14. The corrigendum issued more than two months after the order under Section 148A(d) vitiates the order beyond repair. We also notice that sufficient material regarding the assets on which investments are alleged to have been made have also not been disclosed in the notice under Section 148A(b). If an agriculture land is referred to, it is only proper that the description along with the details of the location as also the specification of the deed by which the acquisition was made should be informed to the assessee. Similarly in the case of a vehicle, the Registration Number and the details are to be supplied. Only such information supplied would enable the assessee to make an effective reply; even if the said investments are picked out from the assets and liabilities declared by the assesse based on which the proceedings were initiated. We hence set aside Annexures 10, 13 and 14. We make it clear that the Assessing Officer would be entitled to initiate fresh proceedings subject to just exceptions. 15. The writ petition is allowed leaving liberty as above.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

In a revision against the intimation under Section 143(1), a due enquiry can be carried out, wherein the assessee would be able to point out the specific instances, of the expenses incurred and its nature, thus enabling exemption from payment of tax to that extent. 12. We also do not see any applicability of the CBDT Circular, relied on by the petitioner. Therein, what has been espoused by the CBDT is the laudable objective of the officers of the Department, not taking advantage of the ignorance of the assessee and providing assistance to the taxpayer, in every reasonable way so as to claim and secure reliefs as provided under the Act. The returns filed herein, by itself does not provide the Assessing Officer with the capacity to enable such a consideration. In fact, the assessee wrongly declared more than 10,00,000/- remuneration paid to the Directors, which is not reflected in the return itself. The Assessing Officer could not have devined that it would be business expenses, entitled to exemption from tax. Even at the stage of rectification, as we observed above, there has to be a process of deduction, by which alone the nature and extent of the business expenses could have been allowed by the Assessing Officer. 13. We, hence, do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned, but however, leave the assessee with the remedy to file an appeal or revision from the intimation under Section 143(1); the delay in which would be condoned on the compelling circumstances of the assessee having pursued his remedy, but under a different provision against a different order; which provision only permitted rectification of mistakes, apparent from the records. The writ petition though rejected, it would be with the above reservation of liberty.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The petitioner only seeks setting aside of the assessment order for the purpose of objecting to the notice itself. 3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, however, specifically refers to the order at Annexure-10 which tabulates various notices issued, which the assessee did not respond to. In fact, the notice under Section 148 of the Income tax Act was preceded by a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act which was received by the assessee to which also there was no response. 4. Having considered the totality of the circumstances and also the tabulation in the order, we are not convinced that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity. In fact, it has to be noticed that though the time granted was of five days till 20.02.2023 and the assessee had asked for seven days, the order was passed only on 03.03.2023. Before that the assessee could have filed an objection and there is no attempt made to file such an objection even after the time provided. 5. In such circumstance, we see absolutely no reason to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction for the reason of there being no violation of principles of natural justice. However, we make it clear that the assessee can approach the appellate authority against the order passed, in which event the period between the filing of the writ petition which was on 22.03.2023 till today shall not be considered as delay occasioned and an application for delay shall be considered favourably, at least with respect to that period, especially looking at Section 14 of the Limitation Act; if an appeal is filed within 30 days from today. 6. Writ petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid reservation.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It is not an activity inextricably connected with the construction of buildings and it does not in any manner reduce the cost of construction; as in the case of interest earned on borrowed funds parked in short term deposits, with which borrowed funds the construction is carried out. In the case of the assessee herein the funds parked in deposits, out of the grants received, are surplus funds; since the amounts earned by the assessee from the deposit of such funds are set-off from the grants for the subsequent year. The principle in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) applies squarely and not that of Bokaro Steel Ltd., (supra). 10. The circular of the State Government providing for deduction of grants in the successive years to the extent of the interest earned from the grants of the earlier year, cannot regulate the taxability under the Income Tax Act. If at all, income tax is deducted from the interest earned, the Corporation would be entitled to request the Government to not deduct the amounts paid as income tax from the grants of the subsequent years. The circular issued by the State Government regulating the business/transaction between the Government and it’s Corporation cannot have any effect on the taxability of the interest income which is deemed to be income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. 11. There is no question of any deduction being permitted, as permissible under Section 36 (i)(iii) of the Act, which is with respect to interest paid on borrowed capital for the purpose of business or profession, there is no such factual ground raised herein. 12. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition and dismiss the same.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The petitioner was also issued with Annexure - C, which indicates that the return filed has been sent for processing to the Assessing Officer. 3. The petitioner sent repeated reminders upon which Annexure-9 was issued by the Income Tax Officer, specifically, pointing out that ITR-V was received only on 23.8.2012 after the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year, which is not permissible as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer also issued a communication to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax with notice to the assessee, pointing out the aforesaid error of a delayed filing of ITR-V, which justified the refusal to further process the return. 4. The assessee places reliance on Annexure-2, circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 09.05.2016, which permitted delayed ITR-V forms also to be filed within 31.08.2016 upon which there was also a further provision to carry out the processing of returns. 5. In the present case the petitioner had filed a return on 23.08.2012, which has been acknowledged by Annexure-4 by the CPC and also admitted in Annexures 9 and 10 communications issued. 6. In such circumstances, we set aside Annexure 10 and the findings therein, in so far as the delayed ITR-V having been submitted which justified the non processing of the return. We direct the Assessing Officer to process the return in accordance with law and in accordance with Annexure 2 circular. 7. The writ petition would stand allowed. But, however, making it clear that we have, merely, stated that the assessee has a claim of refund and we have not considered the same on merits, which has to be considered by the Assessing Officer.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Insofar as the clause(b) is concerned, the limitation is 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, provided the escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50 lakh or more. In the present case, the order under clause (b) of Section 148A itself is passed on 21.04.2023 after the expiry of the 3 year period and the total amounts likely to have escaped assessment is indicated as Rs. 18,25,500/-. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department argued that in fact Annexure-1 is the initiation of the proceedings, which was on 31.03.2023 on introduction of the faceless assessment by way of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. There is requirement for issuance of notice under Section 148A(a) and an order under clause(d) prior to the notice issued under Section 148A; which provision (Section 148A) is introduced newly under the I.T. Act. The notice under Section 148A is issued within a 3 year period, is the contention. 6. It is to be noticed that Section 148A was brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021 when Section 148 also stood substituted. Section 148A deals with the inquiry and the opportunity being provided before issuance of notice under Section 148. However, under Section 149, which also stood substituted by Finance Act, 2021, the limitation provided is for the notice under Section 148 and not of inquiry or opportunity for hearing under Section 148A. 7. The relevant assessment year is 2019-20 and 3 years end on 31.03.2023. There is no notice issued under Section 148 as on date. The proceedings, hence, cannot be continued and we find Annexure-3 order under Section 148(d) to be not enabling the Department to proceed under Section 148. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The assessee on the other hand submits that when far more amounts are due from the department to the assesee, the department could enable filing of Form 26B so that the refund can be processed and the demands set off along with any interest payable to the department from the refunded amounts. The only rider would be in so far as the department also being made liable to pay the interest due on the refund. 8. Annexure-B is a circular issued by the Board which as has been declared in the cited decisions is not binding on this Court or even the assessee. There can be no prescription of a limitation period in the circular, which is not available in the statute or the rules framed thereunder. 9. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the entire problem could be resolved if the department avails of the provision under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act. Having found that there is no limitation for making a claim of refund; even now the assessee could make an application and when the refund is processed there can be a set off made of the amounts remaining due from the assessee for the various assessment years, from the amounts directed to be refunded. On the above reasoning, we direct the department to either enable filing of Form 26B or in the alternative permit the assessee to make a claim for refund in the physical mode which shall be considered on the basis of the statement made under Section 200 regarding the tax deducted at source. The refund being processed and permitted, the department should set off the amounts due as evident from the demand raised for the various assessment years from 2007-08 to 2021-22 as per Annexure-7 series. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

In the absence of such an allegation, though the escaped duty may be reclaimed within one year, there cannot be any imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. Section 11 AC, in paragraph no. 29 of the said judgment, was declared to be “punishment for an Act of deliberate deception by the assessee with the intent to evade duty by adopting any of the means mentioned in the Section” (sic). 14. We have to examine the provision under Section 271C in the background of the aforesaid declaration of law made based on the specific words employed in the provision under Section 11AC. Section 271C does not have any restriction insofar as the penalty being leviable only on the conscious wrong doing or deliberate deception by the assessee. The mere failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required under the provisions of Chapter-XVII-B, 115-O(2)(i) and the second proviso to Section 194B(ii) would be liable to penalty. The assessee’s claim of exemption from tax by reason of the interest being paid to Government entities cannot be sustained. Exemption from tax is a statutory mandate, to be decided by the authorities under the Income Tax Act and not the assessee. There is hence no ground to absolve the imposition of penalty, as discernible from the words employed in the provision; which is distinct and different from those employed in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The question with respect to the sustainability of a penalty on the facts and circumstances of the case is found in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 15. The appeals stand dismissed answering all the questions in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Prakash Chandra Agrawal, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 02-08-2023 The petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed at Annexure-1 in a rectification application. It is stated that the rectification application was filed as early as on 14.01.2019, as we see from Annexure-3. The matter was kept pending for almost three years after which Annexure-1 dated 15.11.2022 was passed. The learned counsel specifically points to Section 154(8) of the Act, which requires the Assessing Officer to dispose of a rectification application within a period of six months. 2. We see that the rectification application was kept pending for a long time but, however, the finding in the Annexure-1 order is that the matter does not call for a rectification under Section 154. We have seen the application also at Annexure-3, wherein, the learned counsel specifically points to the fact that one of the contentions raised was that the assessment order having shown the income of Rs. 38,703/- while the current year loss was stated to be Rs. 4,73,41,301/-. The assessment order would have necessarily made adjustments in so far as the loss caused. In any event that the assessment order passed at Annexure-2 is the subject matter of appeal which appeal was filed on 02.02.2019. 3. In such circumstances, we close the writ petition without any observation on the merits but, however, leaving the petitioner to agitate all the contentions in the appeal already filed. 4. The writ petition stands dismissed. Prakash/avinash (Partha Sarthy, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The income so alleged; to have escaped assessment should thus have a live link with the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer. 12. In the present case as has been found in Ravindra Kumar (HUF) (supra), the belief entertained by the Assessing Officer is only on the premise that there was nothing produced by the assessee in pursuance of a notice under Section 133(6); regarding the agricultural income, which was shown as exempted income under the returns and accepted by the Assessing Officer. There was no tangible material on which the Assessing Officer proceeded under Section 147 and in that circumstance it is a mere change of opinion which is, as held in Kelvinator of India (supra), a review in the garb of reopening the assessment. 13. On the above reasoning, it has to be held for the two assessment years, that the proceedings were issued without jurisdiction, since the reassessment initiated under Section 147 was not on any tangible material and there was nothing available with the Assessing Officer to entertain a belief that the assessee had wrongly claimed exemption of the agricultural income or of the unsecured loans. The agricultural income shown as exempted in the return was accepted by the Assessing Officer initially and so were the unsecured loans. There is no scope for a review of the same and when there was nothing available with the Assessing Officer, there could not be a reopening of assessment, under Section 147. Both the assessment orders challenged in the writ petitions are set aside. 14. The writ petitions stand allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

14. In the present case, there is no dispute as to the first and last requisition having been made on 06.06.2017 in the assessment year 2018-19, corresponding to financial year 2017-18. The last of the relevant assessment year in which the requisition was made would be 31.03.2018 and the period of limitation would expire on 31.12.2020. In the present case, no assessment was initiated on or before the said date under Section 153A. The assessments were initiated that too under Section 148 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19 on 31.03.2021, long after the assessment period had expired. 15. In this context, we have to also notice that Section 153A was introduced in the Act notwithstanding the provisions, inter alia, of Sections 147 and Section 148. Hence, when no proceedings were taken under Section 153A, after the requisition made under Section 132, the Assessing Authority is disabled from proceeding for any assessment. Insofar as assessments pending and abated under Section 153A, after the expiry of 21 months limitation period under Section 153B there can be no proceeding taken under the Act either for regular assessment under Section 143 or under Section 153A or reassessment under Section 147 read with 148. 16. On the above reasoning, writ petitions have to be allowed. Hence, in CWJC No. 1965 of 2021, there shall be a direction to the Department to refund the entire seized cash with interest, as provided under Section 132B(4). The proceedings under Section 147 and 148, as challenged in CWJC No. 17372 of 2021 shall be set aside. 17. The writ petitions are allowed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

In fact, the saving in expenditure by reason of the low rent made also a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. Ayesha Hospitals (supra) was also a case in which a Private Limited Company was running a hospital in a leased premise, on which premise maintenance was carried out. The Assessing Officer treated it as a capital expenditure. The High Court held that though the building belonged to the Directors, the owners were separate entities returning the rental income and also paying tax on the profits arising out of the hospital. Following Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd., it was held that expenditure incurred on construction of a leased premises by the Assessee was deductible as revenue expenditure. 5. In the above case, the Assessee had claimed depreciation at the rate of 50% on the ground that the building was a temporary structure. In fact, as per Rule 5 read with appendix 1 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Purely temporary erections such as wooden structures are entitled to 100% depreciation and as has been found in the aforesaid judgment, if it is a temporary structure, there could even be a claim raised as a revenue expenditure, however, in the present case the claim was of 50% depreciation, which cannot be allowed. In fact, appendix 1 provides for only 10% depreciation for buildings other than used for residential purpose and not covered by sub- items 1 and 3. In the above circumstances, there is absolutely no valid claim for the assessee to obtain a 50% depreciation. 6. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer especially in a petition under Article 226. 7. The writ petition stands dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Hence, there can be no spread over of the interest income in the years in which it accrued after death of the person, which resulted in the compensation being awarded. We also have to notice sub- clause (ix) of sub-section(3) of Section 194A, which speaks of such exemption from deduction of tax, from the interest income, when the aggregate amount of such income credited or paid during the financial year exceeds Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, the income has to be found to have accrued only on the date of payment or credit. 8. We have to caution the Tribunals, insofar as the proper procedure being the resort to refund, if at all the claimant does not have income in excess of the taxable limit under the Income Tax Act. 9. On the above reasoning, we find that the application filed before the Tribunal was unsustainable. We, hence, set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 09.02.2018 and caution the Tribunals from issuing such orders directing refund for the periods prior to 01.06.2015. We specifically notice that Section 194A(3)(ix) has been substituted by the Act 20 of 2015 with effect from 01.06.2015, which reads as under:- “(3)(ix)-To such income credited by way of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the MACT.” On the above provision coming into force from 01.06.2015, no TDS can be deducted even on the interest component. The writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs. 10. Since, we have answered the question against the refund directed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the application before the Tribunal need not be restored and the same shall stand closed as not maintainable.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

On comparative examination of Sections 148 and 148A of the Act, it can be easily culled out that Section 148A lays down the requisite conditions before issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The proviso to Section 148 restricts the Assessing Officer from issuance of a notice without prior approval of the specified authority. Section 148A lays down a procedure as a condition precedent for issuance of a notice under Section 148. The condition of prior approval of specified authority under Section 148 is satisfied once prior approval of specified authority is granted under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act, in our considered opinion. 22. We do not find breach of any mandatory requirement stipulated under Section 148A of the Act which would require this Court’s interference at the stage of issuance of notice, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. We do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. Rajesh/Sachin/- I agree. Jitendra Kumar, J

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

We find no reason to accept the contention raised of it’s retrospectivity and reject the argument of discrimination and the amendment having intended mitigation of hardship and removal of unintended consequences. The consequence that flow from the provisions in the absence of sub-section (5A) of Section 45 prior to 01.04.2018 cannot be obliterated by the subsequent amendment, which was expressly stated to be prospective. We reject the writ petitions making it clear that we have answered only the question of retrospectivity urged before us. We have not gone into the facts and the various contentions of the petitoners, regarding the JDA having not materialized, no consideration having been passed, the JDA itself having become unworkable and even some of the petitioners, companies and like legal entities having become defunct. These contentions would have to be considered on the anvil of the principles enunciated in Balbir Singh Maini (supra). The appellants are left to their statutory remedies and since, the above writ petitions were pending before this Court for long, we grant them two months time, in the case of notices, to file objections before the Assessing Officer. Insofar as the assessment orders are concerned, we grant the assessee’s who are the petitioners herein, a further period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, within which a statutory appeal can be filed before the first Appellate Authority. All contentions on individual facts will be considered either by the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority, depending upon the stage of the assessment. 25. The writ petitions are dismissed with the above observations.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

A revision was filed by the assesse which was dismissed as per Annexure-9. The revisional authority in fact found that though the challenge was related to the assessment carried out against the assessee, a firm, who was issued with PAN No. AAGFB5910L but the requisite fee was filed against the new PAN account. The application of the assesse hence was dismissed as not maintainable. We are not convinced that there is any valid argument against the assessment of the assessee as a firm with PAN No. AAGFB5910L for the year AY 2017-2018. The assessee admits that an application was filed as an AOP but the registration was issued as a firm; which is hard to believe, especially since the assessee claims that from the time of its registration in 2004, the assessee had been regularly filing returns, an authenticated copy of which has not been produced here. The earlier returns filed relatable to the first PAN number issued was as a firm, and not as an AOP. Obviously, in the AY 2015-2016, the assessee filed a fresh application for registering the very same institution as a charitable institution under Section 12AA of the Act, without surrendering the earlier PAN issued in the very same name. This was to avail the benefit of Section 12AA. We are of the opinion that the assessee from the above facts is guilty of misrepresentation and even fraud; prima facie, from the above disclosed facts. We do not say anything about the measure employed for obtaining the registration under Section 12AA, but however, leave it to the Income Tax Officer to take appropriate proceedings. As to the challenge against the assessment made, we are convinced that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the original order or the revisional order. The writ petition would stand dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Verma Road, Patna, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna 2nd Floor, Central Revenue Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Patna. 2. The Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 4, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. 3. The Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 17-04-2023 The writ petition is said to have been filed on behalf of Naresh Kumar Agrawal by his son and legal heir Nitesh Kumar Agrawal. In fact, it should have been filed by Nitesh Kumar Agrawal, representing the estate of Naresh Kumar Agrawal. In any event, we do not take umbrage, especially since the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Patna has filed a counter-affidavit on 15.03.2023 clearly stating as here under:-intaunted "In the light of the above, proceeding u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 taken against the deceased assessee Late Naresh Kumar Agrawal is dropped on 30.06.2022." We record the above statement made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the statue which settles the grievance of the son/legal heir of the deceased assesse. shashank/sumit- ( Madhuresh Prasad, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 13-04-2023 The petitioner, in the present case, is aggrieved with the fact that there was no effective video conferencing for the purpose of hearing given to him by the Assessment Authority, as is required under Section 144B (6) (viii) of the Income Tax Act. Learned senior standing counsel for the Government of India (Taxes) has specifically pointed out from Annexure-11 that a video conferencing was afforded on 21.09.2022 at 03:00 PM. However, the notice was uploaded on the portal only at 11:30 PM on 20.09.2022 i.e. just previous day. It is hence the petitioner was not able to avail of the video conferencing opportunity given by the Assessing Authority, effectively. Though the petitioner appeared in the video conferencing, he was not able to argue the matter effectively. Learned senior standing counsel, who was directed to get instructions, fairly submits that the facts, as seen from Annexure-11, are in fact correct and that it would be ensured that the Assessing Officer does not repeat such issuance of notices on the previous day. We also have to caution the Authorities, in so far as issuing such notices, when it would be appropriate that at least seven days notice is given when hearing is carried out through video conferencing as required under the faceless assessment procedure. In the present case, on the facts disclosed, we set aside Annexure-14 series of assessment orders and demand notices and direct the Income Tax Authority to fix a date, issue notice to the petitioner for video conferencing, hear the petitioner and complete the assessment. Writ application stands allowed. Sumit/Shashank- ( Madhuresh Prasad, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. SC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 13-04-2023 The petitioner is before us alleging that he was not given opportunity of video conferencing, as is required in the faceless assessment procedure now introduced under Section 144B (6) (viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the specific contention of the assessee that he had filed an objection and on the portal, he had affirmed the requirement of a video conferencing which, however, was not granted. A reading of Annexure-10 clearly indicates that there was no hearing by video conferencing. We directed learned senior standing counsel for the Government of India (Taxes) to get instructions. On instructions, learned senior standing counsel very fairly submits that in fact there was no video conferencing granted and it was a lapse on the part of the Assessing Authority. In such circumstances, we set aside Annexure-10 series, which are the assessment orders and demand notices. We direct the Assessing Officer to fix a date, issue notice to the petitioner for video conferencing, hear the petitioner and complete the assessment. Writ application stands allowed. Sumit/Shashank- ( Madhuresh Prasad, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13808 of 2022 ====================================================== M/s DBS Constructions Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Station Road, Dehri on Sone, Dalmia Nagar, Rohtas, P.O.- Dehri, P.S.- Dehri, District- Rohtas (Bihar), Pin- 821115 through its Director namely Sunil Kumar Singh, S/o Daroga Singh, Male, aged about 57 years, resident of New Dillian, Sambika Path, Dilia, P.O.- Dehri, P.S.- Dehri, District- Rohtas- 851307, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Sasaram. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Smith Singh, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 06-04-2023 The petitioner was aggrieved with the proceedings initiated under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As of now, the proceedings have been closed by the communication dated 17.01.2023. Learned Senior Counsel is only concerned with the reservation made in the said communication with respect to reopening of the proceedings, if the closure is found to be wrong. Definitely, the petitioner would be entitled to raise all legal contentions against such reopening, if at all attempted. We close the writ petition with the aforesaid liberty. P.K.P./Anushka (Harish Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

However, subsequent to the aforesaid decisions relied upon by her, amendments have been made in the Income Tax Act which obligate the Assessing Officer to strictly adhere to the requirements under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The order or notice issued for invoking the provisions of re-assessment/re- computation under Section 147 and 148 of the Act is under statutory obligation to adhere to the requirements as stipulated under Section 148A of the Act. As the illegality in issuance of notice, is manifest, we have considered it just and proper to nip in the bud by giving the revenue authorities an opportunity to correct what was incorrectly done. This we consider to be in the interest of revenue as also in the interest of the assessee. Considering the nature of information as furnished to the petitioner with notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in our view, the challenge to the notice dated 14.03.2022 is sustainable. Situated thus, the petitioner’s challenge to the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(b) of the Act is also sustainable. As a consequence thereof, the notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained. In the result the notice dated 14.03.2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 31.03.2022 under Section 148 of the Act are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to consider issuance of fresh notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and proceed, accordingly in accordance with law upon furnishing clear information to the petitioner stipulated under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and direction. There would be, however, no order as to cost.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

10. Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, learned senior counsel, has fairly submitted that this Court, exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner, to the extent the same relates to rejection of the petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay in exercise of power under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we remand the matter back to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Bihar and Jharkhand), after setting aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2022, with a direction to him to reconsider the petitioner's case for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(a) of the Act. It is expected that the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax shall keep in mind the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.M. Malani (supra) and the concern shown by the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Dehradun Chartered Accountants Society vs. Union of India (supra). 12. This application is allowed with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh representation in this regard within 15 days, which shall be considered and decided accordingly, in the light of the observations noted above. 13. It is further expected that that Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, shall pass order in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter. Sumit/Shashank- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, ACJ)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The impugned order are unreasonable and has been passed in an utter violation of the principle of natural justice. C. For issuance of direction to the respondents authorities not to proceed against the petitioner because the respondents authority over rule the Act and passed an order after addition of 5,90,000 income, where as the assesse has filed its return as per rule and also deposit the tax on time. D. For grant of reliefs as the petitioner is found entitled.” After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Court not to be in favour with the submissions made across the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to take recourse to such other remedies, as are otherwise available, in accordance with law, including the one provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961, more specifically filing an appeal before the appropriate authority. Permission granted. We are sure that as and when any such proceedings are initiated, before the appropriate forum/Tribunal/authority, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. Needless to add, period for which the petitioner has been pursuing the matter before this Court, shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Saurabh/Sujit ( Partha Sarthy, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The impugned order are unreasonable and has been passed in an utter violation of the principle of natural justice. C. For issuance of direction to the respondents authorities not to proceed against the petitioner because the respondents authority over rule the Act and passed an order after addition of 5,90,000 income, where as the assesse has filed its return as per rule and also deposit the tax on time. D. For grant of reliefs as the petitioner is found entitled.” After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Court not to be in favour with the submissions made across the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to take recourse to such other remedies, as are otherwise available, in accordance with law, including the one provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961, more specifically filing an appeal before the appropriate authority. Permission granted. We are sure that as and when any such proceedings are initiated, before the appropriate forum/Tribunal/authority, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. Needless to add, period for which the petitioner has been pursuing the matter before this Court, shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Saurabh/Sujit ( Partha Sarthy, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

C. For issuance of direction to the respondents authorities not to proceed against the petitioner because the respondents authority over rule the Act and passed an order after addition of 5,90,000 income, where as the assesse has filed its return as per rule and also deposit the tax on time. D. For grant of reliefs as the petitioner is found entitled.” After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Court not to be in favour with the submissions made across the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to take recourse to such other remedies, as are otherwise available, in accordance with law, including the one provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961, more specifically filing an appeal before the appropriate authority. Permission granted. We are sure that as and when any such proceedings are initiated, before the appropriate forum/Tribunal/authority, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. Needless to add, period for which the petitioner has been pursuing the matter before this Court, shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Saurabh/Sujit ( Partha Sarthy, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice/ Hon’ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.) Date : 16-12-2022 Petitioner has prayed for following relief (s) : - “a) For issuance of writ of Certiorari, quashing assessment order dated 25.03.22 passed under Sec. 147 read with Sec. 144B of Income Tax Act and demand notice dated 25.03.22 (Annexure- 3 Series) issued by Respondent no 4 for AY 2016-17 without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, respondent had violated the principles of natural justice. b) For any other consequential relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled during course of hearing of this writ petition.” The impugned order of assessment dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure- 3 series, Page 25) is quashed and set aside for the reason that the order stands passed in violation of principles of natural justice; material placed on record was neither referred to nor considered and dealt with; entails civil and penal consequences inasmuch as liability stands fastened upon the petitioner. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to place additional materials, should the need so arise, within a period of two weeks from today. The Assessing Authority shall pass a fresh order expeditiously in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. KC Jha/chn ( Partha Sarthy, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

16. This Court find force in the submission put forward by Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi that the statement of the claimant was that the train reached around 5 PM. How and under what circumstances, the same was recorded at 4.30 PM at Nalanda Medical College Hospital, Patna is not known but that cannot be the only basis for denial of the compensation in the background of the fact that the N.M.C.H., Patna, gave report about his entry on the date of accident i.e 5.2.2005 followed by his operation on 14.3.2005 and finally the discharge report on 28.4.2005. 17. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts in the considered view of the Court, ‘the learned Tribunal’ completely erred in denying the compensation amount to the appellant when admittedly there has been no denial that : (i) he was a bonafide passenger having monthly Ticket No. 007561279 having validity period from 12.01.2005 to 11.02.2005 as also; (ii) in course of his journey due to the push and pull/crowd of the passengers while de- boarding, he got injury and subsequent amputation of both the legs below the knee. 18. In the result, the order dated 25.6.2014 passed by 'the Tribunal' in O.A. No. 00083/2005 is hereby set aside. 19. The Railway Authorities are directed to pay Rs. 4 lakh with 9 per cent interest from the date of the filing of the application before ‘the learned Tribunal’ till the payment is actually made, the process shall be completed within a period of 60 days. 20. In the aforesaid circumstances, the M.A. No. 608 of 2014 is hereby allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The B. R. A. Bihar University Muzaffarpur Bihar, through its Registrar, Colonel Ajay Kumar Rai 2. Dr. Amarendra Narayan Yadav, Vice-Chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur Bihar -842001 3. Colonel Ajay Kumar Rai, Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur Bihar -842001 4. Mr. Rishav Deo Singh, Finance Officer, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur Bihar 5. Md. N. Haque Finance Adviser, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur Bihar 6. Mr. Shouvik Guha Commissioner, Circle 1(i), Income Tax Department, Revenue Building, Birchandra Path, Patna Bihar 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Income Tax Officer, Ward Circle-1 (i), Patna Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Income Tax : Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate For the BRA Bihar University : Mr. Zaki Haider, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH) Date : 01-12-2022 Heard Mr. Nitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department and Mr. Zaki Haider, learned counsel for the BRA Bihar University. 2. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, especially learned counsel for the Income Tax, the Court finds that all the dues admissible to the petitioner have been paid. 3. The same is not controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14123 of 2022 ====================================================== Uttam Kumar Mandal Son of Late Jagdish Mandal Resident of 190, Nakkinagar Keshopur, Jamalpur, Munger, Bihar- 811214. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Munger, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : M/s Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr.SC Alok Kumar, Swarna Roy, Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 23-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- “ i) the notice dated 25.03.2022 (as contained in Annexure 5) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proposing to make a reassessment without consideration of the written submissions and without conduct of any enquiry under Section 148 A of the Act and on a mechanical sanction granted by the specified authority be quashed. ii) for granting any other relief (s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.” Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, reserving liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. Permission granted. Present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 14-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- It is not in dispute that during the course of the proceedings, petitioners had made a request in terms of the statutory provisions, i.e., Section 144 B (7) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, which is quoted below:- “(vii) in a case where a variation is proposed in the draft assessment order or final draft assessment order or revised draft assessment order, and an opportunity is provided to the assessee by serving a notice calling upon him to show-cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the such draft or final draft or revised draft assessment order, the assessee or his authorised representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral submissions or present his case before the income-tax authority in any unit;.” for affording an opportunity of physical hearing, which request undisputedly was not considered favourably, prior to the passing of the impugned orders dated 16.03.2022 and 17.03.2022 . As such, on this short ground alone, the aforesaid orders are quashed and set aside, reserving liberty to the respondents to conclude the proceedings, should they desire, strictly in accordance with law. Needless to add, petitioners shall fully co-operate and participate in the proceedings with an endeavor of having the same concluded at the earliest. Date for hearing shall be fixed by the authorities, to be duly intimated, enabling the petitioners to participate therein by way of prescribed mode. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association reported inn (2001) 247 ITR 201(SC). (ii) For issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Patna to dispose of the appeal filed on 07.02.2020 without being influenced by the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 24.12.2019 and as per law with regard to claim of benefit under Section 11(2) of the Act. (iii) For issuance of any other writ, order or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Impugned order dated 24th December, 2019 (Annexure-1, page 36) needs to be quashed and set aside, for we find the same to be perverse inasmuch as relevant material of having filed the Form-9A in a physical form, was never considered and dealt with by the authority passing the order in rejecting the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay. Shri A.K.Rastogi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, clarifies that application for condonation of delay was filed only as a matter of an abundant caution, for even though the Form stood filed in a physical form, but the electronic copy could not be uploaded within the stipulated period of time. It is only in this backdrop, the application was filed. Be that as it may, we leave this issue to be considered and dealt with by the Assessing Officer. As such, impugned order dated 24th December, 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Patna is quashed and set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider and decide afresh. Present petition stands disposed of. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sujit/Ashwini ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Statement accepted and taken on record. As such, petition stands disposed of in the following terms:- (a) Petitioner shall make himself available before the Appellate Authority on 01.08.2022; (b) It shall be open for the petitioner to move an application seeking interim protection; (c) Opportunity shall be granted to the parties to place on record all essential documents and materials, if so required and desired; (d) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully cooperate and not take unnecessary adjournment; (e) The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits, in compliance of the principles of natural justice; (f) The Appellate Authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority; (g) Copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be supplied to the parties; (h) Equally, liberty reserved to the parties to take recourse to such other remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law; (i) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch; (j) We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues are left open; (k) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to assail the order, before the appropriate forum, should the need so arise subsequently. The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sujit/Ashwini ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 14-07-2022 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- “1. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions to quash demand of Rs. 84,25,621 shown on petitioner's portal is fit to be quashed a. whether assessing authority is right in imposing liability of Rs. 84,25,621, when the order has not been uploaded on the portal only amount has been loaded b. Whether respondents are right in posting liability of Rs. 84,25,621 no notice u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act has been served on the petitioner. c. Whether act of the petitioner do not deprive the petitioner in taking any legal recourse as per law. d. Whether action of the authority is not in violation to see 143(3) of the Act.” Seriously disputing the averments made in the petition and without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties, Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, states that copy of the order, even though uploaded on the site and sent to the petitioner through e-mail, would yet be supplied to the petitioner within next one week from today. Also, copy thereof shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Without going into the merits, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. All pleas on fact and law are left open to be taken by the parties and to be adjudicated by the appropriate authority. Interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. Sujit/Ashwini ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. The Joint Com,missioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Patna. 4. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner/Income Tax Officer, Circle-4, Patna. 5. The Assistant Director, Investigation Unit-II, Revenue Building, Patna. 6. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (2), Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Mohan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. S.C. Mr. Alok Kumar, Jr. S.C. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Jr. S.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 14-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- Shri Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner’s appeal assailing the impugned orders dated 24.12.2019 and 29.03.2022 (Annexures- P/1 and P/8) is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority. Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, learned counsel for the respondents, states that if the petitioner were to fully cooperate, the petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal on merits. In view of the same, we request the Appellate Authority CIT Appeal-2, Patna to positively decide the appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from today. Mrs. Sinha undertakes to communicate the order to the appellate authority.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

iii. To hold and declare that the order passed by CIT- (A), Jamshedpur is bad and illegal as the CIT- (A), Jamshedpur has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal as the assessing officer at Muzaffarpur has passed order of assessment hence only the commissioner Appeal, Muzaffarpur has jurisdiction to decide appeal. iv. To pass any other order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions as your honour deemed fit and proper.” After finding the Bench not to be in favour of the submissions made on merit, Shri Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, reserving liberty to file an appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. Appeals, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. Liberty, as prayed for, granted. If the appeal is preferred before the appropriate designated authority within a period of two months from today, Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents states that the issue of limitation shall not come in the way of the decision of the appeal on merits. Statement accepted and taken on record, clarifying that if the appeal is preferred beyond the said period, the issue of limitation shall be dealt with by the appellate authority in accordance with law. Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Amrendra/PKP (S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

iii. To hold and declare that the order passed by CIT- (A), Jamshedpur is bad and illegal as the CIT- (A), Jamshedpur has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal as the assessing officer at Muzaffarpur has passed order of assessment hence only the commissioner Appeal, Muzaffarpur has jurisdiction to decide appeal. iv. To pass any other order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions as your honour deemed fit and proper. After finding the Bench not to be in favour of the submissions made on merit, Shri Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, reserving liberty to file an appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. Appeals, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. Liberty, as prayed for, granted. If the appeal is preferred before the appropriate designated authority within a period of two months from today, Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents states that the issue of limitation shall not come in the way of the decision of the appeal on merits. Statement accepted and taken on record, clarifying that if the appeal is preferred beyond the said period, the issue of limitation shall be dealt with by the appellate authority in accordance with law. Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Amrendra/PKP (S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

We notice that in the instant case, notice was issued on 23rd of March, 2022, directing the petitioner to respond on or before 30th of March, 2022. No doubt, petitioner did respond but then the obligation cast upon the officer to afford “7 clear days”, as is so stipulated in the section was never afforded to the petitioner. The language of the section is unambiguously clear. There is a mandate to the officer to provide opportunity to the petitioner of filing response and such period being “not less than” seven days. We notice that the respondent authority passed the order on 31st of March, 2022, which also only exhibits undue haste in passing the order against the assessee. We are persuaded by Ms. Smriti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, to take the aforesaid view also on the strength of the decision dated 12th May, 2022 rendered by Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 7385 of 2022, titled as Shri Sai Co- operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 43-6. Accounting for all the attending facts and circumstances, the order dated 31.03.2022, passed by respondent no.2, namely, the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna is set aside with the authority to issue a fresh notice within 15 days in terms of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and complete the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully co-operate and respond to the notice within the period stipulated under Section 148A of the Act and/or the period specified in the notice. The officer concerned shall pass an order within a period of two months thereafter. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Ashwini/Sujit ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-06-2022 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “For issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs or order or orders, direction or direction or for quashing of the order dated 31-03-2022 passed by the respondents no.-4 by which the entire 10709228 deposit in current account of the petitioner has been treated as total income of the petitioner against the total income as per Income tax return Rs. 6248660.00 on baseless and arbitrary manner which is illegal and not sustainable in law or may pass any other order or orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for which relief the petitioner is entitled to get.” After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to prefer an appeal. Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, states that if the appeal were to be preferred within a period of four weeks from today, the issue of limitation shall not be allowed to come in the way and the appeal shall be heard and decided on merits. We are hopeful that the petitioner shall fully co- operate and not take any unnecessary adjournment and as and when the appeal is preferred, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously and in accordance with law. We are also hopeful that petitioner's request for interim relief shall be considered by the appellate authority/assessing officer. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on facts and law. All issues are left open. The present petition stands disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sujit/Ashwini ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Statement accepted and taken on record. As such, petition stands disposed of in the following terms:- (a) Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Appellate Authority on 23.05. 2022; (b) Opportunity shall be granted to the parties to place on record all essential documents and materials, if so required and desired; (d) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully cooperate and not take unnecessary adjournment; (e) The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits, in compliance of the principles of natural justice; (f) The Appellate Authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the petitioners before the Appellate Authority; till then no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners. (g) Copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be supplied to the parties; (g) Equally, liberty reserved to the parties to take recourse to such other remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law; (h) We are hopeful that as and when petitioners take recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch; (i) We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues are left open; (j) Liberty reserved to the petitioners to assail the order, before the appropriate forum, should the need so arise subsequently. The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sujit/Ashwini ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

iii. To hold and declare that there is not escapement of income and tax within the meaning of section 147 of the Act in view of the fact that petitioner had disclosed the deposit and bank account vide bank account no. 911020021375951 (Axis Bank) and Account no. 3049258724 (SBI) in the return and the profit and loss account which filed by petitioner before issuing notice u/s 148, as such, reassessment order passed on 29.03.2022 u/s 147 is amount to change of opinion and review as per the order/judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Kalivinator, (2010) 320 ITR 561 and order of The Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar (HUF) vs CIT, Patna reported in (2019) 419 ITR page-308. iv. To pass any writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and proper.” After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Court not in favour of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, states that the petitioner shall be content if the petition is disposed of, with liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate forum and to take recourse to such other alternate remedies which are equally efficacious in law. Smt. Archana Sinha @ Shahi, learned counsel for the respondents, states that limitation shall not be allowed to come in the way if the petitioner prefers such an appeal within four weeks from today. Statement accepted and taken on record. Prayer allowed. The petition is disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

iii. To hold and declare that the order passed by assessing officer for rectification is unreasonable and illegal because no reason or at least valid reason has been assigned in the order to support the assessment and demand rather the order in question is cryptic and non speaking being contrary to the document available on record. iv. To hold and declare that the demand created by the respondent assessing officer is wholly unreasonably and illegal because the assesses is a trust which running college and the activities carried out by trust is wholly charitable as such the whole of the receipt/income is exempted from levy of tax within the meaning of income tax act. v. To issue any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as your honour deemed fit and proper.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting our attention to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that during pendency of the present petition, substantial relief stands granted, inasmuch as, the amount assessed stands reduced from Rs. 1,53,63,423 to Rs. 38,73,763/- with consequential reduction in the demand to Rs. 14,69,387/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that petitioner be granted liberty to challenge the said order afresh by way of separate writ petition. Liberty granted. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. veena/rajiv- ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

9. After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel for the parties were ad-idem that the matter can be remanded back to the authority for consideration afresh, by affording opportunity to the parties to place all material, enabling the authority to arrive at a decision in accordance with law. 10. We have no hesitation in acceding to such request. As such, dispose of the petition in the following terms: (a) The impugned order dated 29.12.2015 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Patna is quashed and set aside; (b) The matter is remanded back to the appropriate/competent authority for consideration of the petitioner’s application afresh; (c) The parties are directed to appear before the said authority on 03.01.2022 when a date shall be fixed, enabling the parties to place on record additional material; (d) Adequate opportunity of hearing shall be afforded with full compliance of principles of natural justice and the authority shall decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking order, copies whereof shall be supplied to the parties; (e) Proceedings can be got conducted through a digital mode, if so found necessary; (f) Liberty reserved to the parties to take recourse to such remedies, if so required and desired, as per law; (g) We only hope and expect the authority to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within the current financial year and positively before 31st March, 2022; (h) All issues are left open. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 12. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sujit/Ashwini ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Pathy, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner could not appear before the authority in view of the adversities arising out of the current Pandemic Covid-19. We notice that notices were issued to the assessee during the period of current Pandemic Covid-19. Being satisfied of the hardship expressed by the petitioner in not responding to the notices, we are inclined to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25th of September 2021, which undisputedly is ex parte in nature. As such, we dispose of the present petition in the following terms:- (a) We quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 passed by respondent no. 2, namely, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Annexure 5 series). (b) Petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Officer i.e. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Respondent no. 2) (Annexure 5 series) or any other appropriate authority authorized to carry out the assessment. (c) Petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Authority on 27th of December 2021. (d) Petitioner shall respond to the notices within a period of two weeks thereafter and the officer, after affording opportunity of hearing shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months thereafter. (c) Petitioner undertakes to fully cooperate and not take any unnecessary adjournment. (d) Also, should the need so arises, it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse of such remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law, including filing of appeal before the appropriate forum. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. veena/rajiv- ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

(h) The Assessing Authority shall pass a fresh order only after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, including the writ petitioner; (i) The respondent shall consider the issue of maintainability of the application, including that of it being time barred, as a preliminary issue. (j) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully cooperate in such proceedings and not take unnecessary adjournment; (k) The Assessing Authority shall decide the case on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner; (l) The Assessing Authority shall pass a speaking order assigning reasons, copy whereof shall be supplied to the parties; (m) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order, if required and desired; The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to communicate the order to the appropriate authority through electronic mode. Amrendra/PKP (S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- I, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I Patna Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 4. The Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (1), Income Tax Department, Gaya. 5. The National Faceless Appeal Centre having its office at North Block, New Delhi through the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC) Delhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 16-11-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s :- In view of intervening developments, Shri Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the main prayer of the writ petition. It is brought to our notice that now the matter, perhaps, with the intervention of Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, is pending before the appropriate authority for consideration, in accordance with law. We only hope and trust that the said proceeding would be completed positively within a period of four months from today. Pending such consideration, we are sure that the authority shall not take coercive steps against the petitioner in light of demand raised, subject matter of the present petition. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Ashwini/Sujit ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

(h) The Assessing Authority shall pass a fresh order only after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, including the writ petitioner; (i) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully cooperate in such proceedings and not take unnecessary adjournment; (j) The Assessing Authority shall decide the case on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner; (k) The Assessing Authority shall pass a speaking order assigning reasons, copy whereof shall be supplied to the parties; (l) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order, if required and desired; The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to communicate the order to the appropriate authority through electronic mode. veena/PKP- ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

(h) The Assessing Authority shall pass a fresh order only after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, including the writ petitioner; (i) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully cooperate in such proceedings and not take unnecessary adjournment; (j) The Assessing Authority shall decide the case on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner; (k) The Assessing Authority shall pass a speaking order assigning reasons, copy whereof shall be supplied to the parties; (l) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order, if required and desired; The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to communicate the order to the appropriate authority through electronic mode. veena/PKP- ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

ii. To hold and declare that reassessment proceeding is based on non-existing fact as the bank account no 71302100000129 and 70972100000264 which relying upon by respondent assessing officer for the initiation of proceeding is not belongs to petitioner society nor the society is operating these two bank accounts as such, the reason recorded and believe formed by respondent for reassessment is bad illegal and without jurisdiction. iii. To hold and declare that the initiation of re-assessment proceeding is bad and illegal in view of the fact that the present proceeding has been initiated on same set of fact and document which was available on the record of the assessing officer and the assessing officer had already considered such fact and issue in regular assessment dated 30.11.2018. iv. To issue any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as your honour deemed fit and proper.” Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to pursue his remedies before the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Near- Dak Bungalow, Patna [Respondent No. 4]. Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the Revenue states that the said officer shall positively take a decision on the notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure P/6). Statement accepted and taken on record. Needless to add, the officer concerned has to take a decision in accordance with law. The present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty/observation aforesaid. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. P.K.P./Amrendra (A. M. Badar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Parijat Saurav, Advocate Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 06-10-2021 Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2020 The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of four days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons assigned, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and the same is treated to have been filed within time. Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2020 stands allowed. Re: M.A. No. 12 of 2020 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Bench presided by Sri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member and Sri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in I.T.A. No. 25/PAT/2019 whereby the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by Sri Prashant Bhushan, Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-I, Patna in I.T.A. No. CIT(A), Patna- 1/10172/2017-18 dated 27.09.2019 upholding the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 and addition of Rs. 3,65,00,000/- under Section 68 made by ACIT (OSD) Ward 2(1), Patna vide assessment order u/s 147/143(3) dated 29.12.2017, the Appellant has preferred the present Memorandum of Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal for the reason that appellant intends to seek remedies for settlement in accordance with the scheme formulated by the respondents. Permission granted. The appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. 3. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 1(1), Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 18-08-2021 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- From the reading of the order dated 3rd December, 2019 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna, Annexure-5, which in toto extracted hereinunder, it appears that the Authorised Officer has not applied his independent mind in forming the opinion while rejecting the petitioner's application in exercise of his power under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. As such, on this short ground alone, leaving all questions open, the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2019 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna, Annexure-5, is set aside with a direction to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Needless to add the Officer must apply his mind and form an independent opinion while considering the petitioner's application. Petitioner shall fully cooperate in such proceedings and not take unnecessary adjournment and place materials, if so required and desired. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sujit/Ashwini ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

No. A.Y. Amount of Refund 1. 1985-86 8,37,518.00 2. 2006-07 41,52,167.00 3. 2007-08 2,56,09,221.00 4. 2008-09 1,13,02,086.00 5. 2009-10 15,226.00 6. 2011-12 11,28,844.00 7. 2014-15 15,87,260.00 8. 2015-16 20,50,200.00 Total 4,66,82,522.00 B. For any other relief which the petitioner may be found entitled to by the Hon’ble Court. Petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking-cum- instrumentality of Government of Bihar, prays for writ of mandamus, with a direction to the respondent-Income Tax Department to pass order for refund of the amount along with statutory interest, to which the petitioner is entitled based on the assessment carried out with respect to the assessment year commencing from 1985-86 upto 2015-16. According to the petitioner, the total amount of refund is Rs.4,66,82,522/- We notice that present petition was filed in the year 2019 and, perhaps, with the passage of time, most of the amount may have been refunded. As such, as prayed for, we dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondent no.3, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Patna to process all cases for refund of the amount, subject matter of the present petition, positively within a period of 4 weeks from the date of passing of the order. Also the amount due, along with statutory interest, shall be refunded within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. Needless to say, issue of payment of interest shall also be examined accounting for the order passed, if any, by any appellate authority.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

... ... Appellant/s Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kishun Chand Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Dronacharya, Advocate Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 01-02-2021 The present appeal has been filed against the part of the order dated 07.01.2016 passed by the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Appeal Case No. ITA/103/Pat/2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 whereby the Ld. Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal for the reason that appellant has taken recourse to the mechanism of settlement of dispute as per the policy framed by the Revenue. Permission granted. We only hope and expect the authority to take a decision expeditiously, per law, by assigning reason, copy whereof be supplied to the appellant. Liberty is reserved to the appellant to assail the order, if the need so arises, on the same and subsequent cause of action. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open. Present appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. P.K.P/Amrendra/ ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

4. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna. ... ... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr.S.C. Mr. Alok Kumar, Jr.S.C. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Jr.S.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 25-01-2021 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “i) the respondent no. 2 or 3 be directed to hear and dispose of Appeal No. 10077/CIT (A)- 2/2018-19 for the Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to the Assessment Year 2015- 16 expeditiously. ii) for granting any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.” The issue agitated before us is on a limited point of expeditious hearing of the appeal pending consideration with the appropriate authority pertaining to the assessment year 2015- 2016. We dispose of the petition on the following mutually agreeable terms: a. The petitioner shall place all material by way of written submission in response to the contentions raised in the appeal within a period of four weeks from today. b. Equally, the Revenue shall respond to the same within a period of one week thereafter. c. For uploading such submissions, link shall be provided to the petitioner. d. The proceeding of the appeal shall be conducted in terms of the present prevalent practice expeditiously, preferably by 31st of March, 2021 and certainly within four months. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. DKS/K.C.Jha ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand patel Marg, Patna ... ... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr.S.C. Mr. Alok Kumar, Jr.S.C. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Jr.S.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 25-01-2021 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “i) the respondent no. 2 or 3 be directed to hear and dispose of Appeal No. 10078/CIT (A)- 2/2018-19 for the Financial Year 2015-16 relevant to the Assessment Year 2016- 17 expeditiously. ii) for granting any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.” The issue agitated before us is on a limited point of expeditious hearing of the appeal pending consideration with the appropriate authority pertaining to the assessment year 2016-2017. We dispose of the petition on the following mutually agreeable terms: a. The petitioner shall place all material by way of written submission in response to the contentions raised in the appeal within a period of four weeks from today. b. Equally, the Revenue shall respond to the same within a period of one week thereafter. c. For uploading such submissions, link shall be provided to the petitioner. d. The proceeding of the appeal shall be conducted in terms of the present prevalent practice expeditiously, preferably by 31st of March, 2021 and certainly within four months. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. DKS/K.C.Jha ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

4, namely, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow, Road, Patna for expeditious disposal of the proceedings pending under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We see no difficulty in accepting such prayer. As such, the present petition is disposed of with direction to Respondent No. 4, namely, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow, Road, Patna to positively decide the matter pending consideration, per law, on or before 31st of March, 2021. Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law. We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch. Needless to add, while deciding the matter, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if the need so rises subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open. The proceedings, during the time of current Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be conducted through digital mode, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree to meet in person i.e. physical mode. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Amrendra/P.K.P/ ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

4. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, having its Office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna. ... ... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. S.C. Mr. Alok Kumar, Jr. S.C. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Jr. S.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 25-01-2021 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “i) the respondent no. 2 or 3 be directed to hear and dispose of Appeal No. 10109/CIT (A)/Bhagalpur/2018-19 for the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to the Assessment Year 2017- 18 expeditiously. ii) for granting any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.” The issue agitated before us is on a limited point of expeditious hearing of the appeal pending consideration with the appropriate authority pertaining to the assessment year 2017- 2018. We dispose of the petition on the following mutually agreeable terms: a. The petitioner shall place all material by way of written submission in response to the contentions raised in the appeal within a period of four weeks from today. b. Equally, the Revenue shall respond to the same within a period of one week thereafter. c. For uploading such submissions, link shall be provided to the petitioner. d. The proceeding of the appeal shall be conducted in terms of the present prevalent practice expeditiously, preferably by 31st of March, 2021 and certainly within four months. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. DKS/K.C.Jha ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

4. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna. ... ... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. S.C. Mr. Alok Kumar, Jr. S.C. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Jr. S.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 25-01-2021 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “i) the respondent no. 2 or 3 be directed to hear and dispose of Appeal No. 10076/CIT (A)- 2/2018-19 for the Financial Year 2013- 14 relevant to the Assessment Year 2014- 15 expeditiously. ii) for granting any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.” The issue agitated before us is on a limited point of expeditious hearing of the appeal pending consideration with the appropriate authority pertaining to the assessment year 2014- 2015. We dispose of the petition on the following mutually agreeable terms: a. The petitioner shall place all material by way of written submission in response to the contentions raised in the appeal within a period of four weeks from today. b. Equally, the Revenue shall respond to the same within a period of one week thereafter. c. For uploading such submissions, link shall be provided to the petitioner. d. The proceeding of the appeal shall be conducted in terms of the present prevalent practice expeditiously, preferably by 31st of March, 2021 and certainly within four months. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. DKS/K.C.Jha ( S. Kumar, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

4. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. S.C. Mr. Alok Kumar, Jr. S.C. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Jr. S.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 25-01-2021 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “i) the respondent no. 2 or 3 be directed to hear and dispose of Appeal No. 10075/CIT (A)- 2/2018-19 for the Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013- 14 expeditiously. ii) for granting any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.” The issue agitated before us is on a limited point of expeditious hearing of the appeal pending consideration with the appropriate authority pertaining to the assessment year 2013-2014. We dispose of the petition on the following mutually agreeable terms: a. The petitioner shall place all material by way of written submission in response to the contentions raised in the appeal within a period of four weeks from today. b. Equally, the Revenue shall respond to the same within a period of one week thereafter. c. For uploading such submissions, link shall be provided to the petitioner. d. The proceeding of the appeal shall be conducted in terms of the present prevalent practice expeditiously, preferably by 31st of March, 2021 and certainly within four months. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

On the other hand, Shri A.K. Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and relies upon several decisions rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court as also different constitutional Courts of the land. 5. Having gone through the record, and more specifically the notice dated 5th of September, 2019, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be best met if the issue, more so, in view of certain disputed questions of fact, is left to be best decided by the authority in terms of the view already taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Satyendra Kumar Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. As such, we dispose of the present petition in the following terms: (a) petitioner shall appear before the appropriate authority on 21st of January, 2021, when a date shall be fixed for further hearing of the matter; (b) parties shall place the entire material before the appropriate authority on the next date of hearing; (c) since the matter pertains to the Assessment Year 2012-13 and the petitioner has been assessed twice i.e. in the year 2016 and 2018, we direct that the proceedings be positively concluded within a period of two months; (d) however, we clarify that preliminary objection on the jurisdictional issue, more so in view of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be decided first; (e) needless to add, opportunity of hearing in person shall be afforded to all concerned; (f) liberty reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law including filing a fresh petition before this Court on the same and subsequent cause of action. 7. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 8. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents states that subject to the petitioner fully complying with the provisions of law, for hearing of the appeal, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously. Statement accepted and taken on record. The petition is disposed of with the following mutually agreeable terms: The petitioner shall appear before the appellate authority on 21.01.2021, on which date he shall comply with all the formalities for hearing of the appeal as per law, including deposit of tax/amount, if any. The petitioner shall fully cooperate and not take any unnecessary adjournment; The appeal be heard and decided on merits within a period of six months from the said date. It stands clarified that the proceedings, during the time of current Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be conducted through digital mode, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree to meet in person i.e. physical mode. Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law. We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch. Needless to add, while considering such appeal, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if the need so arises subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the preliminary order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure- '2') passed in pursuance of the said Notice by Respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner's objection on the issue of assumption of his jurisdiction has been rejected on the ground that share application money was not examined with due diligence, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the notice u/s 142(1) dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure-'3') by which the petitioner has been directed to furnish certain details along with connected documents as the same is erroneous and without any basis." It is submitted on behalf of Senior Counsel of Income tax department that present petition has become infructuous inasmuch as, petitioner had filed present writ petition for quashing the notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.03.2019 for assessment year 2012-13 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, the Assessing Officer. However, during pendency of writ petition, the proceeding initiated stands concluded on 30.12.2019, by passing the final assessment order which is appealable. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file appeal against the order dated 30.12.2019 passed under Section 147 of the Income tax Act, before the Appellate Authority and if any such appeal is filed before the appellate authority within 6 weeks, the appellate authority shall condone the delay in filing appeal as matter remained pending before this Court and shall decide the appeal on merit within 12 weeks from the date of filing of such appeal.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

10. We have no hesitation in acceding to such request. As such, dispose of the petition in the following terms: (a) The impugned order dated 26.09.2014 passed by Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Bihar & Jharkhand) in F.No.CCIT/Pat/Tech-II/10(23C)(vi) & (via)/14-15/, titled as Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, is quashed and set aside; (b) The matter is remanded back to the appropriate/competent authority for consideration of the petitioner’s application afresh; Here only Mrs. Archana Sinha clarifies that now the nominated authority is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Patna. (c) The parties are directed to appear before the said authority on 17.12.2020 when a date shall be fixed, enabling the parties to place on record additional material. (d) Adequate opportunity of hearing shall be afforded with full compliance of principles of natural justice and the authority shall decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking order, copies whereof shall be supplied to the parties. (e) Proceedings can be got conducted through a digital mode, if so found necessary. (f) Liberty reserved to the parties to take recourse to such remedies, if so required and desired, as per law. (g) We only hope and expect the authority to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within the current financial year and positively before 31st March, 2021. (h) All issues are left open. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 12. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) Date : 25-11-2020 Heard the parties. Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- (I) The respondent no.2 to be directed to refund sum of Rs.68,070 determined in pursuance of an order of assessment in the case of her husband late Dr. Anil Kumar with statutory interest thereon. (ii) Any other relief which the petitioner may otherwise be entitled to.” It has been submitted by Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the Department of Income Tax, that grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed and the refund amount has been credited in her account and the interest accrued thereupon has already been credited into her account and nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. However, it is submitted by Mr. D. V. Pathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that full interest amount has not been credited into the account of petitioner, however, same is being disputed by learned counsel for the Revenue. If any amount in form of interest is still due, the department will verify the same and if any amount of interest is found payable, same to be credited into the account of petitioner within 30 days. With said observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Revenue Building, Veerchand Patel Marg, Patna 2. The Chief Commissioner Income Tax Department, Revenue Building, Veerchand Patel Marg, Patna-800001 3. The Joint Commissioner Income Tax Department, Range-I, Lokmany Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Crossing, Fraser Road, Patna-1 4. The Income Tax Commissioner Ward 1(2), Lokmany Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Crossing, Fraser Road, Patna-1 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) Date : 25-11-2020 Heard the parties. Petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “This is an application is for issuance of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent to refund the excess tax deducted by the respondents amount of the petitioner for assessment year 2012-13 to 2017-18, total thereof is Rs.91,880/- with interest @ 12% and 25,000/- as litigation cost or direction/directions or order/ orders which may be found just and proper.” It has been submitted by Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the Department of Income Tax, that grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed and the refund has already been credited into his account of the relevant years, as such, present petition has become infructuous and it is accordingly, dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) Date : 24-11-2020 Heard the parties. Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- a. “To give affect of the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal order Annexure 4 to the petition and the Appellate order marked as annexure 3 to the petition. b. To refund Rs. Sixty four lacs recovered from the petitioner’s Bank Account and excess tax paid in the form of TDS stands to total amount is Rs.89,00,000 and the same is required to be refunded with interest. c. To not to adjust against the years in which the tax has already been paid and there is no liability. d. To quash Annexure 3, the order passed which is bad in the eye of law and is in violation to section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order passed by the assessing authority, as contained in Annexure 3, without exhausting statutory remedy against the order as impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file appeal before the appellate authority against the order as impugned in this writ petition and if any such appeal is filed by petitioner, the appellate authority shall condone the delay in filing appeal as the matter remained pending before this Court and shall decide the appeal on merit within 60 days from the date of its filing.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Resultantly, irrespective of the category of liability, such deductions were regulated by law under the aegis of Section 43B, keeping in mind the peculiar exigencies of fiscal affairs and underlying concerns of public Revenue.” 14. Even on an earlier occasion, the Court affirmed the view of the Revenue that furnishing of a Bank Guarantee is not the same as making payment stipulated under Section 43B of the Act [Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan vs. Mcdowell and Company Limited, (2009) 10 SCC 755]. 15. Hence on both counts, we see no reason to accept the contentions of the petitioner- (a) Constitutional validity of the Act already stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Exide Industries Limited (supra). (b) On the second submission, undisputedly, petitioner had not deposited the amount deducted as STT with the authorities, and it is not his case that the same stood paid back/returned to the person from whom it stood deducted. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that since the petitioner was adopting the mercantile system of accounting; he was not supposed to take any action. Even on this count, given law discussed above, more so Exide Industries Limited (supra). (supra) and Mcdowell (supra), the orders cannot be said to be perverse and illegal warranting interference by this Court. 16. Given binding precedents of Hon'ble the Apex Court, we need not refer to the binding effect of the decisions rendered by different High Courts cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. The writ petition stands dismissed. 18. No order as to costs. 19. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The fact that Hon’ble Apex Court has stayed the operation was not known to the Assessing Officer and, hence, the mistake was committed. 6. That in reply of paragraph number 9, 10 of the writ petition it is stated that the assessing officer was not aware of the order dated 20.07.2018 of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The assessing officer was also not aware of order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by which the Hon’ble Court has stayed the operation of the impugned Hon’ble High Court order dated 25.01.2018. Hence, inadvertently mistake of passing the assessment order was committed.” (emphasis mine) 8. The effect of the order of the Supreme Court whereby the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1391 of 2018 and analogous cases has been stayed is that the earlier Assessment Order dated 31.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment year 2015-16 in case of each petitioner is intact till the matter is finally decided by the Supreme Court. Hence, there could not have been another Assessment Order for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in case of the petitioners. 9. Moreover, since the respondents have themselves admitted that the orders impugned dated 26.10.2018 were passed by the Assessing Officer mistakenly due to inadvertence and lack of knowledge of the order of the Supreme Court, they cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the respective Assessment Orders dated 26.10.2018 passed by the DCIT, Circle-1, Patna under Section 143(3) read with Section 260A of the Act as contained in Annexure-1 to the respective writ petitions whereby demands have been raised against the petitioners are hereby set aside. 11. The writ petitions stand allowed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

2012-13 on 07.08.2018. It is mainly because of while passing the re-assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the claim of business loss by the assessee of Rs.39,44,57,728/- was not allowed inadvertently. As the mistake was apparent from record, the same was allowed vide rectification order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, under memo no. 746, dated 07.08.2018 and the same has resulted into a refund of Rs. 27,17,210/-.” Mr. Pathy, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage while submitting that the assessment order impugned at Annexure-4 series together with the demand notice as impugned at Annexure-4 series yet continues with a number of infirmities prays for liberty for the petitioner to raise the other issues in a statutory appeal under Section 246 of ‘the Act’ but further submits that since the period of limitation has expired in the meanwhile, a reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner for taking recourse thereto. We do not think Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Department would have serious objection on the liberty so prayed and accordingly we dispose of the writ petition allowing the petitioner to contest the assessment order on its merit in so far as the other issues are concerned by filing statutory appeal under Section 246 of ‘the Act’ and should any such appeal be preferred by the petitioner within 6 weeks from today, if accompanied with the petition for condonation of delay, the Commissioner, Income Tax Appeal shall consider and dispose of the same on its merits in accordance with law after opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its representative bearing in mind the pendency of the matter before this Court, preferably within six weeks of the filing of the appeal.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

What Mr. Pathy, canvasses is that once the division bench judgment of the Tribunal whereby the claim of the petitioner had been negated, was overruled by the larger bench, the petitioner became entitled to his reliefs. We would not express ourselves on this submission because before us, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the substantial question of law which is raised in the case. Now besides the fact that Section 35H providing for such reference stands deleted, the other prayer also cannot be entertained because the very judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner has been overruled by a larger bench. In other words, the issue before us is prima facie rendered academic. The submission of Mr. Pathy is that the issue is not actually rendered infructuous rather has been answered in favour of the petitioner by the larger bench. In view of the larger bench decision, Mr. Pathy prays for disposal of the matter to enable the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy that may be available to him in law for espousing the grievance in the light of the position settled by the larger bench. We do not think that Mr. Tripathi learned Senior Counsel for the Department may have any objection because we are not expressing our opinion on the plea of reference so made rather in case the petitioner intends to avail of the remedy that may be available to him in view of the larger bench decision, he shall be at liberty to do so. With the observations above, we dispose of this Tax Case. Bibhash ( Partha Sarthy, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

23,106,56/- to be paid to the claimants with interest @ 7 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of payment after deducting the applicable income tax. The claims tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.14,284/- and annual income as Rs.1,71,408/- and since deceased was unmarried the tribunal has deducted 50% of annual income towards his personal and living expenses which comes to Rs.85,902/- and as such, has assessed loss of dependency to be Rs.85,902/- and since the age of deceased was 21 years, multiplier of 18 was applied and compensation amount has been assessed as 15,46,236/- and thereafter has added 50% towards future prospect and thereafter under conventional heads has granted Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection and has quantified the amount of compensation as Rs.23,10,656/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its payment. After hearing the parties and perusing the order passed by claims tribunal, this court does not find any infirmity or error in the award passed by the claims tribunal. Accordingly, the Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation amount in terms of award passed by claims tribunal within two months from date of receipt/production of a copy of order passed by this Court. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant-insurance company at the time of filing of appeal, a cheque for the same would be prepared in the name of claimant no.1 and be send to the concerned Tribunal for its onward payment to the claimants, which shall be adjusted in the claim amount. Both the miscellaneous appeals are disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range II, Patna. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II, Patna. 4. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) Date : 18-06-2019 Mr. D.V. Pathy, learned counsel for the petitioner while questioning the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by service of notice dated 31.03.2017 impugned at Annexure 10 seriessubmits that the issue which is raised in the writ petition is covered by the judgements of this Court and Supreme Court and which does not permit the Statutory Authority to reopen the matter repeatedly. According to. Mr. D.V. Pathy, it is for the third time that the assessment has been reopened in the present case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that it is at the very stage of issuance of notice that the petitioner has rushed to this Court on the grounds noted above, we are certainly not persuaded to express ourselves at the notice stage rather would leave the matter open for discussion before the Statutory Authority who shall apply his mind to the objections raised by the petitioner on the reopening of the proceeding in the backdrop of the legal position settled and take the matter to its logical end within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Nasimul/Amit ( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the materials on record, for the present, we do not think that we need to look into the inter-party merits because in our opinion the petitioner succeeds on the issue of limitation and even if the assessee has failed to raise this objection at any stage of the proceedings, where law itself prohibits initiation of a proceeding on happening of an event, a waiver by the assessee to raise such issue and his participation in the proceeding neither precludes him to raise such issue at any stage of the proceeding nor provides sanction to a void proceedings. On the facts available on record, there is no dispute that the return was filed in the financial year 2004-05 which ended on 31.03.2005 and the notice under Section 143(2) of ‘the Act’ was being issued on 08.08.2006 as admitted by the Assessing Authority himself, which was far beyond the limitation prescribed under the proviso attached to Section 143(2) of ‘the Act’ which ended on 30.09.2005 and thus was clearly hit by limitation. In such view of the matter, the entire exercise by the Assessing Authority under Section 143(3) of ‘the Act’ is illegal and time barred and its affirmation by the appellate authority is an illegality perpetuated. For the reasons discussed, we quash the entire proceedings including the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority for the assessment year 2004-05 together with the appellate order impugned at Annexures -1 and 3, respectively. The writ petition is allowed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It has further been submitted that the Apex Court has fixed additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate and appellant is also entitled for the same. After considering the submission made by the parties, this Court also finds that applicable multiplier in case of claimant-appellant should be 18 and in addition thereto, additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- is also required to be paid to them as such, the compensation awarded to the claimant is enhanced to the extent as indicated above. The claim of appellant with regard to future prospect cannot be allowed as the deceased was a daily wager employee and in such cases compensation in head of future prospect cannot be granted. The appellant has also submitted that Tribunal has assessed the annual income of deceased on the lower side, however, this Court does not find any error in assessing the annual income of the deceased by the Tribunal. As a result, these appeals are partly allowed and respondent - Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.4,18,800/- to the claimant and United India Insurance Company Ltd. is absolved from the liability of paying any amount of compensation to the claimant. The compensation amount to be paid with 8 % interest per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant - Reliance General Insurance Company may be paid to claimant and a cheque of Rs.25,000/- be prepared in the name of claimant and handed over to his counsel for its payment to the claimant. Let the L.C.R. be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Having noted the issues canvassed by Mr. Sriram Krishna in support of the appeal, as opposed by learned counsel for the Income Tax Department, we are in no confusion to hold that there was no infirmity in the exercise done by the Commissioner, Income Tax II purportedly under Section 263 of ‘the Act’ because the provisions of Section 263(c) suitably empowers the Commissioner to pass such order even if any appeal is pending but with a caveat, that the order passed under Section 263 of ‘the Act’ shall govern only such matters which was neither a subject matter nor decided in appeal. It is not in dispute that issue on which the remand order was passed in purported exercise of powers vested in the Commissioner, Income Tax under Section 263 i.e. unsecured loans/creditors, was not a subject matter of appeal and obviously could not have because this issue had been decided by the statutory authority in favour of assessee. In the circumstances discussed, we find no infirmity in the exercise and since the order has been acted upon to result in the fresh assessment order, we leave it open for the assessee to question the same in accordance with law but finding no issues which are in the nature of substantial question of law we refuse to grant indulgence, to dispose in this appeal. Be noted that we have not expressed any opinion on the inter-party merits and the appellant shall be at liberty to raise all issues as he chooses to raise, to question the order passed on remand of the matter under Section 263 of ‘the Act’. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Anjula/skpathak ( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Either way, the action be taken and a decision communicated to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition.” It is following this direction that the matter was examined and order was passed on 05.01.2018 which is impugned in this writ petition. The substance of the order rejecting the allegation is that there is no evidence supporting the allegation. While it is the submission of Ms. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department that the Panchnama which was drawn during the search and survey operation records no such objection, the assessee has countered by stating that it was drawn on blank paper but the inventory list placed at Annexure-I contains the details of 58 items and bears the signature of the representative of the petitioner and neither records any objection nor is on a blank sheet. In such view of the matter, where the allegation set up by the petitioner is mere a word against a word of the Department, in absence of supporting material which would conform to the allegation, we are not inclined to enter into the disputed facts. It was for this reason, that the Co-ordinate Bench taking note of the grievance of the petitioner on the earlier occasion, relegated the matter for enquiry by the Department allowing the petitioner to establish his allegation but it is not forthcoming. In such view of the matter and in view of the disputed facts which lie at the foundation of the allegation, we refrain from exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution to dispose of the writ petition.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

What we are concerned presently is whether in the circumstances discussed, there is any requirement of a pre-deposit where undisputedly the registration of the petitioner under Section 12AA of 'the Act' has not been interfered with by a competent authority. For ascertaining as to whether the petitioner enjoys registration under Section 12AA of the Act, we had allowed time to learned counsel for the Income Tax Department to clarify as to the source of power for the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax to revoke the registration under Section 12AA of 'the Act'. A supplementary counter affidavit is filed and which is silent on any such order of revocation. In such view of the matter and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are certainly satisfied to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax(Exemptions) in so far as it requires the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of 20% of the tax assessed amount before the appeal(s) can be heard and which order is hereby set aside. We also hereby issue direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner for the respective years and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a maximum period of 6 weeks from today and until such disposal, the respondents are restrained from taking coercive measures for realization of the demand which are subject matter of appeals. As a consequence of decision above, the attachment orders if any issued, stands removed. The writ petition is allowed with the direction above. Bibhash ( Arvind Srivastava, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It is not in dispute that while initially a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner towards the disputed tax amount but during the pendency of the matter another sum of Rs.15,00,000/- has been deposited. Thus when this matter came up for consideration on 26.03.2019, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- had already been deposited by the petitioner. Allowing the petitioner to move ahead, it is informed by Mr. Rastogi and not contested by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Department that a further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner-University. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and considering that there is admittedly a discretion vested in the statutory authority to go below the limit of 20% so fixed in the advisories issued, that the institution is registered under section 12AA of the ‘Act’, we are satisfied by the conduct of the petitioner to grant interim protection until the disposal of the appeal bearing note of the deposit of about Rs.40,00,000/- by the petitioner towards the disputed amount. Let no coercive measures be taken by the Department towards the recovery of the balance amount until disposal of the appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna who is accordingly advised to consider and dispose of the appeal expeditiously and preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. It goes without saying that parties would cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The writ petition is allowed with the direction above. Anjula/skpathak (Arvind Srivastava, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Mr. Pathy submits that the limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department may be restrained from acting pursuant to the demand notice raised against the petitioner which is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is but for the nonavailability of the Bench that the hearing is delayed, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. This matter was heard on 08.01.2019 and on the request made by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department and to enable her to seek instructions that the matter was adjourned and is taken up today when Ms. Archana Sinha accepts the position regarding nonavailability of the concerned Bench of Appellate Tribunal but submits that steps are being taken for its constitution and thus even if, this Court be persuaded to grant interim protection to the petitioner, it be for a limited period coupled with a direction to the petitioner of cooperating in the expeditious disposal of the appeal, as and when the Appellate Tribunal is constituted. Mr. Pathy, fairly accepting the submissions so made, submits that there would be no lapse on behalf of the petitioner in cooperating in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the grievance raised as well as the undisputed position existing regarding nonavailability of the Appellate Bench, we deem it proper to order for stay of the demand notice dated 15.11.2018 impugned at Annexure-4 Series to the writ petition until the constitution of the Appellate Bench and its expeditious hearing/disposal by the concerned bench. The writ petition is allowed with the directions above.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Mr. Pathy submits that the limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department may be restrained from acting pursuant to the demand notice raised against the petitioner which is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is but for the nonavailability of the Bench that the hearing is delayed, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. This matter was heard on 08.01.2019 and on the request made by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department and to enable her to seek instructions that the matter was adjourned and is taken up today when Ms. Archana Sinha accepts the position regarding nonavailability of the concerned Bench of Appellate Tribunal but submits that steps are being taken for its constitution and thus even if, this Court be persuaded to grant interim protection to the petitioner, it be for a limited period coupled with a direction to the petitioner of cooperating in the expeditious disposal of the appeal, as and when the Appellate Tribunal is constituted. Mr. Pathy, fairly accepting the submissions so made, submits that there would be no lapse on behalf of the petitioner in cooperating in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the grievance raised as well as the undisputed position existing regarding nonavailability of the Appellate Bench, we deem it proper to order for stay of the demand notice dated 15.11.2018 impugned at Annexure-4 Series to the writ petition until the constitution of the Appellate Bench and its expeditious hearing/disposal by the concerned bench. The writ petition is allowed with the directions above.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Mr. Pathy submits that the limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department may be restrained from acting pursuant to the demand notice raised against the petitioner which is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is but for the nonavailability of the Bench that the hearing is delayed, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. This matter was heard on 08.01.2019 and on the request made by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department and to enable her to seek instructions that the matter was adjourned and is taken up today when Ms. Archana Sinha accepts the position regarding nonavailability of the concerned Bench of Appellate Tribunal but submits that steps are being taken for its constitution and thus even if, this Court be persuaded to grant interim protection to the petitioner, it be for a limited period coupled with a direction to the petitioner of cooperating in the expeditious disposal of the appeal, as and when the Appellate Tribunal is constituted. Mr. Pathy, fairly accepting the submissions so made, submits that there would be no lapse on behalf of the petitioner in cooperating in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the grievance raised as well as the undisputed position existing regarding nonavailability of the Appellate Bench, we deem it proper to order for stay of the demand notice dated 15.11.2018 impugned at Annexure-4 Series to the writ petition until the constitution of the Appellate Bench and its expeditious hearing/disposal by the concerned bench. The writ petition is allowed with the directions above.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Mr. Pathy submits that the limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department may be restrained from acting pursuant to the demand notice raised against the petitioner which is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is but for the nonavailability of the Bench that the hearing is delayed, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. This matter was heard on 08.01.2019 and on the request made by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department and to enable her to seek instructions that the matter was adjourned and is taken up today when Ms. Archana Sinha accepts the position regarding nonavailability of the concerned Bench of Appellate Tribunal but submits that steps are being taken for its constitution and thus even if, this Court be persuaded to grant interim protection to the petitioner, it be for a limited period coupled with a direction to the petitioner of cooperating in the expeditious disposal of the appeal, as and when the Appellate Tribunal is constituted. Mr. Pathy, fairly accepting the submissions so made, submits that there would be no lapse on behalf of the petitioner in cooperating in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the grievance raised as well as the undisputed position existing regarding nonavailability of the Appellate Bench, we deem it proper to order for stay of the demand notice dated 15.11.2018 impugned at Annexure-4 Series to the writ petition until the constitution of the Appellate Bench and its expeditious hearing/disposal by the concerned bench. The writ petition is allowed with the directions above.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Mr. Pathy submits that the limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department may be restrained from acting pursuant to the demand notice raised against the petitioner which is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is but for the nonavailability of the Bench that the hearing is delayed, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. This matter was heard on 08.01.2019 and on the request made by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department and to enable her to seek instructions that the matter was adjourned and is taken up today when Ms. Archana Sinha accepts the position regarding nonavailability of the concerned Bench of Appellate Tribunal but submits that steps are being taken for its constitution and thus even if, this Court be persuaded to grant interim protection to the petitioner, it be for a limited period coupled with a direction to the petitioner of cooperating in the expeditious disposal of the appeal, as and when the Appellate Tribunal is constituted. Mr. Pathy, fairly accepting the submissions so made, submits that there would be no lapse on behalf of the petitioner in cooperating in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the grievance raised as well as the undisputed position existing regarding nonavailability of the Appellate Bench, we deem it proper to order for stay of the demand notice dated 15.11.2018 impugned at Annexure-4 Series to the writ petition until the constitution of the Appellate Bench and its expeditious hearing/disposal by the concerned bench. The writ petition is allowed with the directions above.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Mr. Pathy submits that the limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department may be restrained from acting pursuant to the demand notice raised against the petitioner which is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is but for the nonavailability of the Bench that the hearing is delayed, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. This matter was heard on 08.01.2019 and on the request made by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department and to enable her to seek instructions that the matter was adjourned and is taken up today when Ms. Archana Sinha accepts the position regarding nonavailability of the concerned Bench of Appellate Tribunal but submits that steps are being taken for its constitution and thus even if, this Court be persuaded to grant interim protection to the petitioner, it be for a limited period coupled with a direction to the petitioner of cooperating in the expeditious disposal of the appeal, as and when the Appellate Tribunal is constituted. Mr. Pathy, fairly accepting the submissions so made, submits that there would be no lapse on behalf of the petitioner in cooperating in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the grievance raised as well as the undisputed position existing regarding nonavailability of the Appellate Bench, we deem it proper to order for stay of the demand notice dated 15.11.2018 impugned at Annexure-4 Series to the writ petition until the constitution of the Appellate Bench and its expeditious hearing/disposal by the concerned bench. The writ petition is allowed with the directions above.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Mr. Pathy submits that the limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department may be restrained from acting pursuant to the demand notice raised against the petitioner which is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is but for the nonavailability of the Bench that the hearing is delayed, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. This matter was heard on 08.01.2019 and on the request made by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department and to enable her to seek instructions that the matter was adjourned and is taken up today when Ms. Archana Sinha accepts the position regarding nonavailability of the concerned Bench of Appellate Tribunal but submits that steps are being taken for its constitution and thus even if, this Court be persuaded to grant interim protection to the petitioner, it be for a limited period coupled with a direction to the petitioner of cooperating in the expeditious disposal of the appeal, as and when the Appellate Tribunal is constituted. Mr. Pathy, fairly accepting the submissions so made, submits that there would be no lapse on behalf of the petitioner in cooperating in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the grievance raised as well as the undisputed position existing regarding nonavailability of the Appellate Bench, we deem it proper to order for stay of the demand notice dated 15.11.2018 impugned at Annexure-4 Series to the writ petition until the constitution of the Appellate Bench and its expeditious hearing/disposal by the concerned bench. The writ petition is allowed with the directions above.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Mr. Pathy submits that the limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department may be restrained from acting pursuant to the demand notice raised against the petitioner which is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is but for the nonavailability of the Bench that the hearing is delayed, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. This matter was heard on 08.01.2019 and on the request made by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department and to enable her to seek instructions that the matter was adjourned and is taken up today when Ms. Archana Sinha accepts the position regarding nonavailability of the concerned Bench of Appellate Tribunal but submits that steps are being taken for its constitution and thus even if, this Court be persuaded to grant interim protection to the petitioner, it be for a limited period coupled with a direction to the petitioner of cooperating in the expeditious disposal of the appeal, as and when the Appellate Tribunal is constituted. Mr. Pathy, fairly accepting the submissions so made, submits that there would be no lapse on behalf of the petitioner in cooperating in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the grievance raised as well as the undisputed position existing regarding nonavailability of the Appellate Bench, we deem it proper to order for stay of the demand notice dated 15.11.2018 impugned at Annexure-4 Series to the writ petition until the constitution of the Appellate Bench and its expeditious hearing/disposal by the concerned bench. The writ petition is allowed with the directions above.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

We also do note that the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of a Settlement Commission are appointed from amongst serving Chief Commissioners or Principal Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax of equivalent rank and which again is a relevant factor for the Department to ponder, whether at all any order of a Settlement Commission unless staring on statutory violation or on perversity, should be assailed in a routine manner as having been done in the present case. For the reasons so discussed, C.W.J.C.No. 13346/2016 lacking in merit is dismissed accordingly. Re: C.W.J.C.No. 13743 of 2017 This writ petition has been filed by the assessee to question award of interest by the Settlement Commission by the order impugned dated 30.9.2015 in purported exercise of power vested under section 234A, 234B and 234C of ‘the Act’. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties are in agreement that a Special Leave Petition involving the same issue is pending consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 29660 of 2017 and in our opinion thus, this writ petition should await outcome of the said proceedings. Learned counsel have also invited attention to an order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 11442/2016 heard analogous with C.W.J.C.No. 12419/2016 to submit that this Court taking note of similar circumstance arising in the said writ petitions, has adjourned the same for its posting, on disposal of the Special Leave Petition in question vide order passed on 4.12.2018. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel and taking note of the issue raised, let C.W.J. C. No. 13743 of 2017 come up for consideration on disposal of SLP (Civil) No. 29660/2017. Parties would be at liberty to make a motion on disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) Date : 08-01-2019 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioners in the three writ petitions and Ms. Archana Sinha for the Department. These writ petitions relatable to different assessment years, questions the very initiation of proceedings in purported exercise of powers vested under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Mr. Rastogi, very fairly informs that these writ petitions were filed at the stage of initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of ‘the Act’ but during the pendency of these writ petitions, final orders have been passed on the proceedings so initiated, for the assessment years in question. He though endeavours to submit that the exercise of powers by the statutory authority under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was without satisfying the pre-requisites to such exercise and thus even if final orders have been passed and if the foundation is lacking, it becomes unsustainable but Ms. Sinha, learned counsel for the Department submits that these issues can well be raised by the assessee before the appellate authority and since final orders have already been passed for the respective assessment years, this Court may not grant indulgence to the prayer made. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that final orders have been passed in the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of ‘the Act’ in the respective cases, while permitting the assessee- petitioner to assail those orders before the appropriate forum through statutory appeals so available under ‘the Act’, we dispose of the three writ petitions together with the interlocutory applications so filed. Bibhash/Ranveer ( Arvind Srivastava, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Ltd.) with particular reference to the opinion recorded at paragraph 5 & 10 and in our opinion the conclusion drawn by the Delhi High Court at Paragraph Nos. 5 & 10 of the judgment squarely applies to the present case and we are persuaded to reproduce the same hereunder for the sake of convenience: “5. After considering the reply, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, on February 26, 2013, passed the two penalty orders in which the plea of limitation was negated. It was noted that initiation of penalty proceedings was not linked to any pending assessment proceedings. The assessee then went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Two separate orders dated September 10, 2013 were passed and the penalty imposed was cancelled on the merits. However, on the aspect of penalty orders being barred by limitation, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) negated the plea of the assessee. 10. In the present case, the limitation in terms of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act began to run on July 23, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was January 31, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on February 26, 2013 were clearly barred by limitation.” On the undisputed facts discussed above and in view of the legal position noted, we are persuaded with the argument of Mr. Rastogi to hold that the entire proceedings initiated for imposition of penalty under Section 271E of ‘the Act’ for alleged violation of Section 269(T) of ‘the Act’ is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of ‘the Act’ and consequently the entire proceedings culminating in the order dated 21.09.2016 enclosed at Annexure-1 series to the Interlocutory Application are quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Arvind/Rajeev ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

He received the notice on 20th of February, 2017, rushed to Muzaffarpur to meet his lawyer who was not available and, therefore, filed a petition for seeking time. This was not granted and the Assessment order was passed after a month and the order supplied to him. He, therefore, filed Revision Petition and in the Revision Petition also even though it seems that opportunities were granted to him but because of some lapse on the part of his counsel the petitioner pleads that he was not apprised of the date fixed and appropriate opportunity to lead evidence or document to show that the income is derived from the sale of agricultural land and, therefore, exempt from the payment of tax, has been denied to the petitioner. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we deem it appropriate that at least one opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to give his say before the competent Assessing Officer and thereafter the Assessing Officer will proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, we allow this petition, quash both the Assessment order dated 16.02.2016 and the order of revision passed dated 28.03.2017 and direct that the petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Officer along with certified copy of this order on 17th of August, 2018 and produce all evidence and document as he requires and thereafter the Assessing Officer will proceed in the matter in accordance with law. In case of any default committed by the petitioner in not complying with the aforesaid direction, the Assessing Officer is free to proceed in the matter without granting any opportunity to the petitioner. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

In Ram and Shyam Co. vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267 this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from “Caesar to Caesar’s wife” the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the instant case, neither has the assessee-writ petitioner described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of instant case. 21. In light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Writ Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, Patna High Court CWJC No.10859 of 2018 dt.02-08-2018 9 wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the re-assessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon.” In the aforementioned case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment and order of the Hon‟ble High Court passed in Writ Petition (C) No.44 of 2009 by which the High Court had interfered with the notice under Section 148 of the Act, granted liberty to the respondents to file an appropriate petition/appeal against the order of reassessment passed under Section 148 of the Act. We are of the considered opinion that in absence of any concluded facts being available before us, it would not be proper to interfere with the impugned notice and order in the present writ proceeding. We, therefore, dismiss the writ application giving liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedies, if so advised, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

+ P.S.- Nawada, District- Bhojpur through its Secretary, Dilip Kumar Mishra, son of Late Paras Nath Mishra, resident of Bela, P.O. Krishna Garh, P.S.- Ara Mufassil, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Jharkhand, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 23-07-2018 In view of the heavy reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on a subsequent order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 8th of June, 2018, may be in a proceeding under Rule 12AA of the Income Tax Act, we are of the considered view that the petitioner should ventilate the grievance as is canvassed before us also by approaching the Tribunal which has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In case the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the Tribunal shall proceed to determine the issue on merit and shall not reject it simply on the ground of delay. With the aforesaid, this application is disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date: 19-07-2018 Petitioner in the present case is challenging the notice dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure-2), the order dated 05.02.2016 (Annexure-7) and the order dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure-10 series) passed by the respondent authorities. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 has passed an ex-parte order of assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and thereby the respondent has imposed tax on deemed consideration on sale of the hotel building under the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. Various contentions have been raised at the bar for and against. Patna High Court CWJC No.8925 of 2016 dt.19-07-2018 2 Learned counsel representing the respondent authorities has contested the submissions of the learned counsel representing the petitioner submitting that the orders impugned in the present writ application are appealable and hence in view of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner, this Court need not examine the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner at this stage in the present writ application. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that there being an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 216 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the petitioner may agitate all such issues which are available to him before the appellate authority. In case such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of thirty days from today, the appellate authority shall consider the same on its own merit and in accordance with law. The writ application is disposed off accordingly.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8879 of 2016 ====================================================== Arun Kumar Verma S/o- Late Anandi Prasad Verma, R/o- Nirja Niwas Behind Mogal Kuyon T.O.P., P.O.+P.S.- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda presently working as Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India, Biharsharif Branch, District Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Revenue Building Birchand Patel Path, Patna 3. Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range- II, Lok Nayak Bhawan Dakbanglow Patna 4. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2 Loknayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 16-04-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, for the present, without entering into the controversy on merit, we direct the D.C.,I.T., Circle 2, Patna, respondent No.4, to consider the case of the petitioner for refund of the amount of T.D.S. deposited, take a decision on the representation and, if found admissible, the entire amount be refunded within a period of four weeks failing which it would be incumbent upon the respondent concerned to hear the petitioner, record reasons for the same and communicate the order to the petitioner. With the aforesaid, this application is disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Prayer made is that the direction be modified to release the bank account of the Corporation in all the 38 districts. Further prayer is that to grant 30 days time to file an appeal against the demand notice. Even though learned counsel for the Revenue Mrs. Archana Sinha argues that attachment of only 7 accounts have been revoked and there is no direction or prayer made for revoking the attachment of accounts of 38 revenue districts, we are of the considered view that the prayer made was for revoking the bank accounts in all the 38 revenue districts and our intention was also to revoke the bank accounts in all the districts. The applicant-assessee is a statutory Corporation of the State and if the bank accounts are attached, it would create day to day hindrance in payment of money for the supply made by the farmers and other needy persons. It would create great hardship to the poor citizens and farmers of the State and, therefore, we allow this application and direct that attachment of bank account in all the 38 districts in the State of Bihar be revoked and the applicant-Corporation is permitted to operate the bank accounts in all the 38 revenue districts subject to the conditions already stipulated by us in the order passed on 26.3.2018 in CWJC No. 5479 of 2018. That apart, we grant the Corporation 30 days time from today to file an appeal before the competent statutory authority. With the aforesaid clarification and modification of the order passed in CWJC No. 5479 2018 this application stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

to the employees and the public at large. We do not appreciate the manner in which both the Departments have functioned. The petitioner department instead of approaching this Court should have taken up the issue through their Departmental Head with the Income Tax Department and thereafter tried to resolve the issue. The Income Tax Department also, in case it found that the Rural Works Department, namely the petitioner, has not deposited the tax in the correct form, should have taken up the issue with the higher authorities of the Rural Works Department or the State Government and tried to resolve the issue. Instead of doing so, the Income Tax Department took the most extreme coercive steps and the petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing writ petition. In doing so, not only the public money, but public time and various other adverse effect has been caused. In our considered view, this is a case where the Principal Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax Department and the Principal Secretary of the Rural Works Department should be directed to sit and resolve the issue in question and till then the bank account of the petitioner should be released. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and issue the following directions: The Income Tax Department shall release the bank account of the petitioner forthwith within a period of 24 hours from today. Thereafter, the Principal Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax Department and the Principal Secretary of the Rural Works Department shall sit and resolve the issue and submit a report with regard to action taken to the Registrar General of this Court within 15 days from today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2215 of 2018 ====================================================== North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Head Office at Vidut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna 800001 through its Deputy General Manager- Finance Anurag, Son of Late Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Flat No.406, Ramayan Apartment, Exhibition Road, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Adv & Mrs. Manju Jha, Adv and Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 23-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document produced by Mrs. Sinha of revenue indicating that pending finalization of the appeal which is pending before the Commissioner, Income Tax, petitioner has already deposited 15 per cent of the demand on 07.03.2018 i.e. after filing of this petition. For the present, without entering into the controversy on merit, we direct that all the proceedings shall remain stayed and kept in abeyance till decision in the appeal by the Commissioner,Income Tax (Appeal). Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeal) is requested to expedite and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, which is pending. The petition stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

.... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Jharkhand Region, Patna. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna. 3. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanjeeev Kumar and Mr. Alok Kumar CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 16-02-2018 Challenging the prosecution launched by the Income Tax Department against the petitioner and the permission granted for prosecuting him on account of non-deposit of the income tax amounting to Rs.2,96,070/-. Sanction has been accorded under Section 276C(2) read with Section 278 B of the Income Tax Act and the matter is pending consideration before the trial court. Against the order of the respondent authorities after considering the show cause filed by the petitioner whereby the prosecution was launched so also against the order passed rejecting the petition for compounding of offence this writ petition. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances at this stage when the matter is pending before the trial court, we see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move the court below for raising grievance and seeking exoneration in the pending trial.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

ame so that she can reap the benefit of refund as the legal heir and successor to the estate of her late husband. The facts in brief indicate that late Dr. Anil Kumar was an assessee and was income tax payee with PAN AFQPK3320Q. However, after his death with regard to income derived by him, a return was filed for the assessment year 2014-15. The return was filed in the name of assessee late Dr. Anil Kumar, but the return was signed and submitted after his death by the petitioner-wife as is evident from Annexure-1 at page 11. The income tax return was processed by the departmental authorities through the CPC Unit

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 09-02-2018 In these appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the ground for challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna are with regard to grant of benefit to the assessee under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. In the detailed order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, we find that the assessee is the Bihar State Finance Corporation created by Central Finance Corporation Act, and therefore, it is held to be a corporation created under the statute and not a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. If, taking note of this factual aspect of the matter, benefit has been granted by the tribunal to the respondent assessee which is a creation of statute, we see no error or any substantial question of law warranting reconsideration merely because in the returns filed erroneously due to mistake of the official, filing the returns in stead of indicating the corporation to be creation of the Central Finance Corporation Act, it is shown to be a company, the statutory benefit accruing to the Corporation by virtue of Section 115JB cannot be denied and in doing so, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and we find no substantial question of law, warranting reconsideration. That apart the deduction granted by the Tribunal which is also challenged in these appeals are based on due appreciation of the evidence and material that came on record and we see no perversity or illegality in the same warranting reconsideration, exercising our limited jurisdiction in a proceeding under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, finding no ground, the appeals stand dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Until and unless the copy of the seized paper is made available to the appellant, he could not be expected to file the return. Therefore, there was no such delay as could be a ground for charging of interest u/s 158BFA (1). The interest charged is cancelled.’’ 12. This is a reasonable finding and while considering ground no.5 of the revenue and allowing it, the Tribunal has simply recorded a finding that there is delay in filing of the return which is attributable to the assessee and, therefore, interest was rightly assessed. However, while doing so, the Tribunal did not take note of the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authorithy, as indicated hereinabove, wherein the delay is attributed to the Department in the matter of submitting photo copies of the seized documents which resulted in delay of filing of the return and if that be so, charging of interest under Section 158BFA (1) was not permissible. 13. Accordingly, this question is answered in favour of the assessee by holding that the delay in filing of the return is not attributable to assessee and, therefore, interest under Section 158BFA (1) was not chargeable. To that effect also the order passed by the Tribunal is quashed." and answered the question in favour of the assessee. To that extent, the appellant in this appeal is also entitled to the similar treatment. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part. As far as the grounds of challenge on ground Nos.1 and 2 indicated hereinabove are concerned, the same fails. Ground No.3 is allowed for the reasons indicated in para Nos.11 to 13 of the order passed in the order passed in M.A. No.535 of 2017 and other cases. To that extent, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Ltd. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that primarily it is the case of the petitioner before us that the petitioner is an assessee before the TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai and with regard to the contract in question tax at the rate of 0.5% has already been made by the Building Corporation and deposited with the Income Tax authorities at Mumbai, as is evident from the certificate issued by the Assessing Authority at Mumbai vide Annexure-1. It is contended that once for the same work and for the same financial year tax has been deducted at Mumbai, further demand by the authorities at Patna is unsustainable. However, it is the case of the department now before us that the tax has to be deducted at the rate of 2% and not at the rate of 0.5% and, therefore, the demand notices have been issued. Petitioner refutes the aforesaid and submits that the tax has been correctly deducted and nothing further remains to be paid. That being so, the petitioner should point out all these facts along with relevant statutory provisions and circulars applicable to the Assessing Authority, and thereafter it would for the Assessing Authority to take note of the return filed by the petitioner for the relevant year and pass an appropriate order with regard to the demand made. Accordingly, we grant liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections with regard to the demand contained in Annexure-A-2 and A-3 afresh before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall consider objection of the petitioner, take note of the grievance and thereafter pass an appropriate order deciding the objection of the petitioner and only thereafter proceed to effect the deduction in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Manju Jha, Advocate Mr. Sadashiv Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 09-01-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that while rejecting the prayer of stay made by the petitioner vide Annexure-C, on 26.12.2017, the Assessing Officer seems to have not taken note of the requirement of the Circular dated 29th February, 2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and a complaint is also made by the petitioner that certain judgments cited have not been taken note of. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently opposes this submission and argues that no such submission was made before the Assessing Officer when the stay application was filed. Without entering into the controversy on merits as canvassed before us, interest of justice would be met, in case the matter is remanded back to the competent authority to reconsider the question of stay. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: On the petitioner filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed application for stay before the competent authority pointing out the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 29th February, 2016, judgments, if any, in favour of the petitioner with regard to grant of stay along with the copy of the judgments, the competent authority shall reconsider the question and pass a speaking order with regard to stay or otherwise within a period of 15 days thereafter. Till the matter is not decided by the competent authority, all coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 08-01-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that while rejecting the prayer of stay made by the petitioner vide Annexure-C, on 26.12.2017, the Assessing Officer seems to have not taken note of the requirement of the Circular dated 29th February, 2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and a complaint is also made by the petitioner that certain judgments cited have not been taken note of. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently opposes this submission and argues that no such submission was made before the Assessing Officer when the stay application was filed. Without entering into the controversy on merits as canvassed before us, interest of justice would be met, in case the matter is remanded back to the competent authority to reconsider the question of stay. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: On the petitioner filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed application for stay before the competent authority pointing out the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 29th February, 2016, judgments, if any, in favour of the petitioner with regard to grant of stay along with the copy of the judgments, the competent authority shall reconsider the question and pass a speaking order with regard to stay or otherwise within a period of 15 days thereafter. Till the matter is not decided by the competent authority, all coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 08-01-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that while rejecting the prayer of stay made by the petitioner vide Annexure-C, on 26.12.2017, the Assessing Officer seems to have not taken note of the requirement of the Circular dated 29th February, 2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and a complaint is also made by the petitioner that certain judgments cited have not been taken note of. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently opposes this submission and argues that no such submission was made before the Assessing Officer when the stay application was filed. Without entering into the controversy on merits as canvassed before us, interest of justice would be met, in case the matter is remanded back to the competent authority to reconsider the question of stay. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: On the petitioner filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed application for stay before the competent authority pointing out the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 29th February, 2016, judgments, if any, in favour of the petitioner with regard to grant of stay along with the copy of the judgments, the competent authority shall reconsider the question and pass a speaking order with regard to stay or otherwise within a period of 15 days thereafter. Till the matter is not decided by the competent authority, all coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

D. V. Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 08-01-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that while rejecting the prayer of stay made by the petitioner vide Annexure-C, on 26.12.2017, the Assessing Officer seems to have not taken note of the requirement of the Circular dated 29th February, 2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and a complaint is also made by the petitioner that certain judgments cited have not been taken note of. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently opposes this submission and argues that no such submission was made before the Assessing Officer when the stay application was filed. Without entering into the controversy on merits as canvassed before us, interest of justice would be met, in case the matter is remanded back to the competent authority to reconsider the question of stay. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: On the petitioner filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed application for stay before the competent authority pointing out the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 29th February, 2016, judgments, if any, in favour of the petitioner with regard to grant of stay along with the copy of the judgments, the competent authority shall reconsider the question and pass a speaking order with regard to stay or otherwise within a period of 15 days thereafter. Till the matter is not decided by the competent authority, all coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Manju Jha, Advocate Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 08-01-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that while rejecting the prayer of stay made by the petitioner vide Annexure-C, on 26.12.2017, the Assessing Officer seems to have not taken note of the requirement of the Circular dated 29th February, 2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and a complaint is also made by the petitioner that certain judgments cited have not been taken note of. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently opposes this submission and argues that no such submission was made before the Assessing Officer when the stay application was filed. Without entering into the controversy on merits as canvassed before us, interest of justice would be met, in case the matter is remanded back to the competent authority to reconsider the question of stay. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: On the petitioner filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed application for stay before the competent authority pointing out the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 29th February, 2016, judgments, if any, in favour of the petitioner with regard to grant of stay along with the copy of the judgments, the competent authority shall reconsider the question and pass a speaking order with regard to stay or otherwise within a period of 15 days thereafter. Till the matter is not decided by the competent authority, all coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.121 of 2017 IN MA 551 of 2008 =========================================================== Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, son of Late Sukhdeo Narayan, resident of Chesire Home Lane, Bariatu, P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, having its office at Beerchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Patna. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Investigation Circle, Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 13-12-2017 Having considered learned counsel for the parties, we see no error in the order apparent on the face of the record. The application is dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.120 of 2017 IN MA 554 of 2008 =========================================================== Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, son of Late Sukhdeo Narayan, resident of Chesire Home Lane, Bariatu, P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, having its office at Beerchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Patna. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Investigation Circle, Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 13-12-2017 Having considered learned counsel for the parties, we see no error in the order apparent on the face of the record. The application is dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.119 of 2017 IN MA 553 of 2008 =========================================================== Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, son of Late Sukhdeo Narayan, resident of Chesire Home Lane, Bariatu, P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, having its office at Beerchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Patna. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Investigation Circle, Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 13-12-2017 Having considered learned counsel for the parties, we see no error in the order apparent on the face of the record. The application is dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.118 of 2017 IN MA 552 of 2008 =========================================================== Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad Son of Late Sukhdeo Narayan, resident of Chesire Home Lane, Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, Distt. - Ranchi .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, having its office at Beerchand Patel Path, Patna 2 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) - II, Patna 3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Investigation Circle, Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 13-12-2017 Having considered learned counsel for the parties, we see no error in the order apparent on the face of the record. The application is dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.117 of 2017 IN MA 550 of 2008 =========================================================== Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Son of Late Sukhdeo Narayan, resident of Chesire Home Lane, Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, Distt. - Ranchi .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, having its office at Beerchand Patel Path, Patna 2. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) - II Patna 3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Investigation Circle, Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 13-12-2017 Delay of eight months and eights days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.3339 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of. Having considered learned counsel for the parties, we see no error in the order apparent on the face of the record. The application is dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Parijat Saurav, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, AAG-10 Mr. Abhi Sarkar, Advocate Mr. Naman Nayak, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Archana Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 29-08-2017 This is a dispute between the State Government and the Income Tax Department in the matter of payment of duty and tax said to have been deducted by the department under the T.D.S. system. Be it as it may be, the fact remains that the appeal filed by the State Government is pending consideration before the Appellate Tribunal and as the Appellate Tribunal is not functioning in Patna, the application has been filed for hearing of the stay application. If the Appellate Tribunal is not functioning in Patna, the petitioner herein can approach the Bench at Mumbai and the Chairman of the Bench at Mumbai is authorized to deal with the stay application. On the petitioner filing a certified copy of this order along with appropriate application before the Bench at Mumbai, which is authorized to hear the matter, we are hopeful that the Bench shall consider the issue of interim relief and pass appropriate order on the prayer for stay made by the petitioner before the said Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall ensure that an amount of Rs. 118 crore is kept as a balance in the account of the petitioner. We request the Tribunal to decide the question of stay within a period of two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of. P.K.P. ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Building, Virchand Patel Marge, Patna (Bihar). 2. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward No. 2 (5), Biharsharif Hospital More, Biharsharif Nalanda (Bihar), Pin Code- 803101. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 08-08-2017 Challenging the act of the respondents in rejecting the return of the petitioner and directing him to pay dues as per the demand notice issued, the petitioner has filed this writ petition directly under Article 226 of the Constitution. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and primary objection is that against the action impugned, the petitioner has remedy of filing rectification application under Section 154(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act and thereafter to take recourse to statutory remedy of appeal, as may be available, under the Act, in case rectification application is not acceded to. Accordingly, contending that statutory remedy is available, the writ petition directly before this Court is not maintainable. We find much force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents and we dispose of the matter granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the provisions of rectification available under Section 154 (1) (b) of the Act and thereafter if any grievance still subsists to take recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal under the Act for filing of the appeal. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Building, Virchand Patel Marge, Patna (Bihar). 2. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward No. 2 (5), Biharsharif Hospital More, Biharsharif Nalanda (Bihar), Pin Code- 803101. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 08-08-2017 Challenging the act of the respondents in rejecting the return of the petitioner and directing him to pay dues as per the demand notice issued, the petitioner has filed this writ petition directly under Article 226 of the Constitution. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and primary objection is that against the action impugned, the petitioner has remedy of filing rectification application under Section 154(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act and thereafter to take recourse to statutory remedy of appeal, as may be available, under the Act, in case rectification application is not acceded to. Accordingly, contending that statutory remedy is available, the writ petition directly before this Court is not maintainable. We find much force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents and we dispose of the matter granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the provisions of rectification available under Section 154 (1) (b) of the Act and thereafter if any grievance still subsists to take recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal under the Act for filing of the appeal. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

.... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Tax Recovery officer (Central), Range - 1, Patna 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, Advocate For the intervenor : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Shalini Bihari, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 08-08-2017 Against the action taken by the Department in the matter of fixation of rent, the statutory provision of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is applicable and the learned counsel for the respondents- Department placing reliance on a communication received from the petitioner on 16.01.2015 makes statement that an appeal before the statutory appellate authority under the Act has been filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the statutory appellate authority may be directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months as has been done in various other cases, i.e. in CWJC No.7089 of 2015 decided on 08.08.2017. In case, the appeal has not been filed, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file it within a period of thirty days. On the same being done, the appellate authority shall decide the same, but in any case, shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation etc. and decide it within three months on its presentation. With the aforesaid, the matter stands disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2916 of 2015 =========================================================== 1. Bhubneshwar Prasad Gupta ( HUF ) C/o M.S. Gobardhan Ram, Ramashish Prasad, Purani Bazar, Muzaffarpur through its Karta Bhubneshwar Prasad Gupta Son of Ramashish Prasad Gupta resident of Majahari Nikunj, Amgola, Muzaffarpur 842001 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bela Kothi, Bela, Muzaffarpur 2. The Income Tax officer, Ward - 1 ( 1 ) Bela Kothi, Bela, Muzaffarpur 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Rajj Sinha, Sr. St.Counsel Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi Jr. St. Counsel =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 07-08-2017 In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the year 2015 in view of the fact that the seized jewelry has been released to the petitioner vide order passed on 27.3.2015, this petition is disposed as having been rendered infructuous.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The Tax Recovery Officer, Central Range I, Patna 6th Floor,Central Revenue Building (Annexe), Birchand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001(Bihar) .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Sahay, Advocate Mr. Sarbottam Kumar Sarkar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. Standing Counsel =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 11-05-2017 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that under 2nd Schedule to Sections 222 and 276 pertaining to statutory procedure for recovery of tax and against the impugned order passed, statutory remedy of appeal under Rule 86, thereafter a review before the statutory authority under Rule 87 is available to the petitioner and, therefore, a writ petition directly before this Court challenging the impugned action of the recovery officer is not sustainable. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the various judgments, tried to argue that when contrary to the Rules, the question of title is also being decided by the recovery officer a writ petition is maintainable, we are of the considered view, that this ground can also be raised before the appellate authority and the appellate authority will be in a better position to appreciate these grounds. Finding a remedy of statutory appeal being available to the petitioner, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. This application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the appellate jurisdiction under the Statute.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner is a statutory local authority, interest of justice requires that they should be granted one more opportunity of being heard and for laps of any omission on the part of some officer the Statutory Body should not suffer. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we allow this petition in part and dispose it of in the following manner:- The petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Officer or the competent authority of the department along with a certified copy of this order and submit all their objections with regard to the demands made along with all relevant documents on 10th of April, 2017 and on the same being done, the competent authority shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law after considering the objections and documents that may be filed by the petitioner. Needless to emphasize that if petitioner fails to avail of the opportunity granted and does not appear before the authority on the date fixed by this Court, the competent authority shall be free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Till hearing is not granted to the petitioner and a proper order is not passed or action as per law not taken, further recovery in pursuance to the impugned order/demand shall remain stayed and the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner shall stand released till decision in the matter afresh as directed by this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. P.K.P. (Sudhir Singh, J)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ) Date: 15-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in the present writ application is to an order passed by Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Patna on 9th of September, 2015 whereby, in case of block assessment, a finding was returned that notice under Section-143(2) of Income Tax Act was not issued, and that the judgment of the Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon, reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 is per incuriam in view of the judgment reported in (2005) 3 SCC 212 (Govt. of A.P. And Another Vs. J.B. Educational Society And Another) and (1976) 1 SCC 719 (State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr.). 3. In Hotel Blue Moon (supra), it is categorically held that the block assessment cannot be framed until notice under Section-143(2) has been served upon the assessee. Since the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has recorded a finding that notice was not served, therefore, in view of the judgment in Hotel Blue Moon’s case (supra), an order of assessment could not have been passed. 4. The reasoning given by the learned Commissioner that the judgment is per incuriam is based upon two Supreme Court judgments. The said finding is not tenable. Neither of the judgments refers/deals with the case of block assessment and of not serving a notice under Section-143(2) which issue was raised and decided in Hotel Blue Moon’s case (supra). 5. In view of the judgment in Hotel Blue Moon’s case (supra), learned Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) has committed grave illegality in holding that such judgment is per incuriam. 6. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) is set aside.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9279 of 2015 =========================================================== M/s R.M. Associates through its Partner Md. Imam Hussain, son of Md. Sadique, resident of 401, City Heart Apartment , Budh Marg, Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Income Tax Commissioner, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan , Patna. 2. The Assistant Income Tax Commissioner, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Income Tax Commissioner, Centralized Processing Centre, Post Bag No. 1, Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore. 4. The Assistant Income Tax Commissioner, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore. 5. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (i), Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 15-12-2016 The claim of the writ applicant is to refund the excess tax amount with interest for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. In the counter affidavit it is stated that refund of Rs. 40,000/-, inclusive of interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, has been issued. In view of the said affidavit, the present writ application is disposed of having rendered infructuous as there is none to controvert the stand of the respondent in the counter affidavit. P.K.P. (Hemant Gupta, ACJ)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It is further evident that despite all attempts the petitioners had not come up with any details with regard to other matters also except what the Department itself had ferretted out. It is too much for the petitioners to claim to have made such confidential disclosure which would seriously prejudice them if their cases go back to the assessing authority under the Income Tax Act. Hence, in this regard reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision in of the Karnatka High Court in N. Krishnan‟s case (supra) and the interim order of the Delhi High Court in Vatika Farms Pvt. Ltd. (supra) can be of no assistance to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the contrary, it is the ratio of Express Newspaper case (supra) cited by the Bombay High Court in Hassan Ali Khan‟s case (supra) that the jurisdiction ought not to be normally invoked if material had come on the record during course of search, that would apply to the present matter. For the aforesaid reasons we also do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Settlement Commission has shirked its responsibility by leaving it to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue on the same facts. Since the basic requirements of Section 245C have been found to have been not met by the Settlement Commission in view of the materials before it, there could have been no question of the Settlement Commission to have proceeded further in the matter except to reject the applications of the petitioners. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Settlement Commission. The writ applications are, accordingly, dismissed.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

20698 of 2010 =========================================================== 1. Shri Mahavir Sthan Nyas Samiti through its Secretary Shri Kishore Kunal having its office at Mahavir Mandir, P.S.- Kotwali, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through Mr. Ujjawal Chaudhary, the Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Patna. 2. Mr. Arvind Kumar, the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna, Bihar. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) Date: 23-11-2016 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The contempt application has been filed by the petitioner against the opposite party No.2 for willful disobedience of the interim order dated 22.12.2010 passed by this Court in CWJC No.20698 of 2010 on the ground that the order dated 27/29th March, 2014 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the said opposite party is in gross violation of the said order. In our order passed today in the main writ application, we have examined the said issue. According to us, the action of the CIT- 1, Patna does amount to overreaching the order of stay granted by this Court in view of certain directions issued to the assessing officer in his order dated 27/29.03.2014. Accordingly, we warn the opposite Patna High Court MJC No.4729 of 2014 dt.23-11-2016 party No.2 not to repeat such type of action in the future. In view of the above, we do not wish to proceed further against the opposite party No.2 in the matter. The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

It is pointed out that the agricultural income is not subject to income tax but is used for rate purposes only. There is no direct correlation between the agricultural income and the amount of income tax liability. It is also pointed out that to verify the genuineness of agricultural income reported by the taxpayers for the assessment year 2007-08 to assessment year 2015-16, a letter has been issued by the Directorate of Income tax (Systems), New Delhi on 10.03.2016 to the field authorities. As many as 2746 cases where agricultural income of Rs. one crore was reported by the taxpayers were identified, whereas 2516 unique cases were subjected to verification from the field authorities. The other details have been given in respect of data quality cleansing technique to estimate the reasonable agricultural income reported by the taxpayers for the relevant years. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that no direction can be issued as sought in the present petition. The individual taxpayers have declared agricultural income. Such agricultural income is subjected to assessment by the relevant Income Tax Authorities. As and when the same is found to be of doubtful nature, we have no doubt that the authorities will take proper steps so as to avoid the masking of unaccounted money as agricultural income. Since the assessees are spread all over the country and in lakhs, we find that the matter is better left to the individual action of the Income Tax Officers how to proceed and assess the asseesses disclosing agricultural income. No further directions are called for. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. Anjani/P.Kumar (Hemant Gupta, ACJ)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

12. Considering the fact that impugned order of assessment has been made by Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Muzaffarpur, who, in the light of the Notification, dated 22nd October, 2014, has not been vested with the jurisdiction to deal with the Trust, which do not claim exemption from payment of taxes, the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Muzaffarpur, could not have, apparently, made any assessment of tax in the case of the present petitioner. 13. In other words, the impugned order of assessment runs wholly contrary to the directions of the CBDT contained in the Notification, dated 22nd October, 2014, which are, admittedly, binding on even the assessing authority concerned. 14. Because of the fact that the assessment, has impugned in the present case, has been made by an authority, which had no jurisdiction to make assessment inasmuch as the authority to make assessment stood vested in the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Patna, the impugned assessment, so made, is void ab initio and cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity. 15. Left, therefore, with no other option, we hereby, in the interest of justice, set aside and quash the impugned assessment and demand notice, dated 31.03.2016, raised by the respondent- Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Muzaffarpur, with, however, liberty given to the Revenue to deal with the question of assessment of the petitioner’s case, in accordance with law, in the light of the Notification, dated 22nd October, 2014. 16. In terms of the above, this writ petition accordingly stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

12. Considering the fact that impugned order of assessment has been made by Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Muzaffarpur, who, in the light of the Notification, dated 22nd October, 2014, has not been vested with the jurisdiction to deal with the Trust, which do not claim exemption from payment of taxes, the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Muzaffarpur, could not have, apparently, made any assessment of tax in the case of the present petitioner. 13. In other words, the impugned order of assessment runs wholly contrary to the directions of the CBDT contained in the Notification, dated 22nd October, 2014, which are, admittedly, binding on even the assessing authority concerned. 14. Because of the fact that the assessment, has impugned in the present case, has been made by an authority, which had no jurisdiction to make assessment inasmuch as the authority to make assessment stood vested in the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Patna, the impugned assessment, so made, is void ab initio and cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity. 15. Left, therefore, with no other option, we hereby, in the interest of justice, set aside and quash the impugned assessment and demand notice, dated 31.03.2016, raised by the respondent- Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Muzaffarpur, with, however, liberty given to the Revenue to deal with the question of assessment of the petitioner’s case, in accordance with law, in the light of the Notification, dated 22nd October, 2014. 16. In terms of the above, this writ petition accordingly stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

12. Considering the fact that impugned order of assessment has been made by Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Muzaffarpur, who, in the light of the Notification, dated 22nd October, 2014, has not been vested with the jurisdiction to deal with the Trust, which do not claim exemption from payment of taxes, the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Muzaffarpur, could not have, apparently, made any assessment of tax in the case of the present petitioner. 13. In other words, the impugned order of assessment runs wholly contrary to the directions of the CBDT contained in the Notification, dated 22nd October, 2014, which are, admittedly, binding on even the assessing authority concerned. 14. Because of the fact that the assessment, has impugned in the present case, has been made by an authority, which had no jurisdiction to make assessment inasmuch as the authority to make assessment stood vested in the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Patna, the impugned assessment, so made, is void ab initio and cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity. 15. Left, therefore, with no other option, we hereby, in the interest of justice, set aside and quash the impugned assessment and demand notice, dated 31.03.2016, raised by the respondent- Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Muzaffarpur, with, however, liberty given to the Revenue to deal with the question of assessment of the petitioner’s case, in accordance with law, in the light of the Notification, dated 22nd October, 2014. 16. In terms of the above, this writ petition accordingly stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

7. It is, thus, clear that the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules framed thereunder need to be examined by the respondent. The Authority, which forms an integral part of the administration of justice, cannot be allowed to remain effectively non-existent for a long time. 8. In our considered view, therefore, Union of India needs to consider the grievance expressed, in this public interest litigation, and decide if the constitution of the Authority and/or the qualifications prescribed for Chairman need any change. This would necessarily involve consultation with the learned Attorney General so as to take appropriate measure, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from today. 9. We may refer to the case of Columbia Sportswear Co. vs. DIT reported in (2012) 11 SCC 224, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the Authority is a body exercising judicial power conferred on it and is a tribunal. 10. We, therefore, direct, as an interim measure, that until a decision is taken on the issues raised by the writ petitioner, in this public interest litigation, by the Union of India, and till a new Chairman is appointed, all the pending cases before the Authority shall be dealt with by the Member (Judicial), at the Principal Bench, who shall carry out the functions of the Authority as its in-charge Chairman, so that the functioning of the Authority does not remain completely stopped. 11. This writ application stands disposed off with the above observations and directions.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

ANJANA MISHRA JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 12-07-2016 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax, appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal- respondents. With the help of this application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the demand notice, dated 17.08.2015, issued by respondent No.3, namely, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna, on the ground that the said demand notice had been issued without determination of the taxable liability of the petitioner and without making any assessment order. By order, dated 03.02.2016, passed in this writ petition, the operation of the impugned demand notice, dated 17.08.2015, was stayed, making the order of stay subject to condition that the petitioner shall cooperate, appear and participate in the assessment proceeding even if the assessment proceeding is held on day-to-day basis. In view of the above, an assessment order has been made, on 29.02.2016, by respondent No.3, which, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, would be challenged in accordance with law. Because of the fact that a fresh assessment has already been made and if any demand notice has to be issued, the same can be issued only pursuant to the assessment order, which has been made on 29.02.2016, the presently impugned demand notice, dated 17.08.2015, has become infructuous and this writ petition is, therefore, closed with liberty given to the petitioner to approach this Court with appropriate application, in future, if so advised, and also to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

14. Having, therefore, regard to the factual aspects of the present case and the law relevant thereto, we are clearly of the view that the respondent No.2, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Patna, is duty bound to take up the appeal at the earliest and if it is found that the taxes, which were to be deducted, at source, by the present petitioner while making payment to the said two Corporations, have been paid by the said two Corporations as deductees, the impugned demands, raised by the respondent No.2, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Patna, shall be set aside and the attachment of the account of the petitioner, maintained with the Government Treasury, Patna, shall be vacated without delay. 15. In order to, therefore, taking the controversy, which the present writ petition has raised, to its logical conclusion in accordance with law, we hereby direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 2, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Patna, in connection with the appeal, in question, within a week from today and, within a week thereafter, the appellate authority, namely, respondent No.2, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Patna, shall, upon examining the issue, as has been discussed above, pass appropriate reasoned order(s) and do the needful as warranted by law. 16. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of with no order as to costs. A.F.R.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

The said order was a reasoned order after noting the prima facie satisfaction of this Court under its order dated 20.7.2009 and cannot be said to be unlawful by the Income Tax Authorities and further relying upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court, reported in 295 ITR 419 and 284 ITR 582. Thus, if at all, the respondent-authorities were of the view that they could take a different stand in a fresh assessment order, there being admittedly no question of res judicata in assessment of income for different assessment years, they were still required to do so acting properly in the matter by giving good reasons for disagreeing with the earlier order dated 20.4.2010 which has not been done in the present matter. As a matter of fact, there has been no change in the nature of interest earned on the funds provided by the State Government which have gone in the Bank and it is not open to the Department to come to a different conclusion in view of the overriding effect of the provisions of Article 289 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ application is allowed. The impugned letter dated 11.3.2015 communicating the decision of the CIT (TDS) is quashed. The respondents shall issue exemption certificate to the petitioner, accordingly. It is, however, made clear that it would be open to the respondents to take a fresh view in a subsequent year but only after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and passing a speaking order.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) Date: 05-02-2015 Learned counsel for the Central Excise Department Patna High Court CWJC No.10690 of 2012 dt.05-02-2015 submits that similar matter filed by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.10697 of 2012 has already been rejected on the ground of availability of the statutory alternative remedy by order dated 24.1.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that the issue has already been settled by different Benches of the Central Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal referring to a decision in the case of P. Gautam & Co. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad: 2011 (24) S.T.R. 447 (Tri.-Ahmd.). It is submitted that the authorities of the Central Excise Department have been repeatedly issuing notices despite the matter having been settled by the Tribunal without even challenging the order of the Tribunal before the higher forum. In our view, any such decision of the Tribunal would be binding upon the authorities so far as any point of law is settled therein subject to the right to challenge such decision before the higher forum. However, considering the other fact that the petitioners have approached this Court against the notices issued by the service tax authorities, we consider it appropriate that the issue of fact and law may be raised more appropriately by the petitioners before the Patna High Court CWJC No.10690 of 2012 dt.05-02-2015 authorities by filing their show-cause/reply to the notice. Both the writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.

As indicated above, the learned Commissioner had pointed out vital omissions in the assessment orders which could be taken care of only after receiving full factual material on record, and has rightly set aside the orders of assessment which are to the prejudice of the Revenue, and with which we entirely agree. 11. As indicated hereinabove, the learned assessing officer has made detailed reference to the defiant and extremely uncooperative attitude adopted by the assessees, which speaks of a very dishonest approach. It is impossible for this Court to countenance such an approach which is inspired by complete lack of respect for the established laws of the land, and the prescribed procedure. In that view of the matter, the Director General of 10 Investigation, Bihar, and/or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Patna, would be well advised to keep the entire group under constant surveillance so that the Revenue does not suffer, and the courts are not burdened with unwanted matters. 12. In the result, we set aside the judgment dated 4.2.2009, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in I.T.A. Nos.444 & 445 (Pat.)/2007, and ITA Nos.443 & 446 (Pat.)/2007, and restore the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessees. These are fairly old matters. The learned assessing officer will be well advised to dispose of the same expeditiously. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.K. Katriar, J.) S.P. Singh, J. I agree. (S.P. Singh, J.)

Extracted from the supplied court copy; line breaks normalised. Read the complete order for its facts, reasoning and all directions.